The Reign of Æthelred II: King of the English, Emperor of all the Peoples of Britain, 978-1016 9781407307251, 9781407321936

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
List of Illustrations
Dedication
Abbreviations
Terminology
Introduction
1. Æthelred the Ætheling: c. 968 - 978
2. A Young King: 978 - 991
3. A King in his Prime: 991-1005
4. A King in Adversity: 1006 - 1013
5. Triumph and Disaster: 1014 - 1016
6. Æthelred: The Posthumous History
Appendix 1: Chronological Analysis
Appendix 2: The Æthelredian Exemplar
Appendix 3: Fiscal Policy and the Manipulation of the Currency
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

BAR 522 2010

The Reign of Æthelred II

HOWARD

King of the English Emperor of all the Peoples of Britain 978–1016

Ian Howard THE REIGN OF ÆTHELRED II

B A R

BAR British Series 522 2010 

 

The Reign of Æthelred II King of the English Emperor of all the Peoples of Britain 978–1016

Ian Howard

BAR British Series 522 2010 

 

ISBN 9781407307251 paperback ISBN 9781407321936 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407307251 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Contents

List of Illustrations

iv

Dedication

v

Abbreviations and Terminology

vi

Introduction

vii

1.

Æthelred the Ætheling: c.968 – 978

1

2.

A Young King: 978 – 991

15

3.

A King in his Prime: 991 – 1005

27

4.

A King in Adversity: 1006 – 1013

46

5.

Triumph and Disaster: 1014 – 1016

63

6.

Æthelred: The Posthumous History

72

Appendices 1. Chronological Analysis 2. The Æthelredian Exemplar 3. Fiscal Policy and Manipulation of the Currency

80 91 110

Bibliography

120

Index

126

iii

List of Illustrations

1

The West Saxon House of Cerdic: 871 – 1016

2

2

The Liudolfingers: 919 – 1002

8

3

The Mercian Ealdormanry

22

4

Ealdorman Ælfhelm’s Family Connections

47

5

Early Sources for the Development of the Legends

73

6

Sources for the Intermediate Stage in the Development of the Legends

74

7

Sources for the Final Stage in the Development of the Legends

76

8

Capita anni: ASC A, C, D, and E from 983 to 1014

80

9

Translations of Annals in MSS C, D and E s.aa. 978 to 982

105

10

Amendments to MS C as evidenced by an examination of MSS D and E

106

11

Amendments to MS E as evidenced by an examination of MSS C and D

108

12

Coins of Edgar, Edward, Æthelred II and Cnut listed by Weight

110

13

Expenditure causing High National Taxation from 991

113

14

Calculations illustrating Profit and Marginal Profit

115

15

‘Premiums’ in Issues of Coins

116

16

Calculation of Premiums used in Illustration 15

119

iv

Dedication

For Mary, Sara and John

v

Abbreviations ASC (A, B, etc.)

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (MSS A, B, etc.)

MGH

Monumenta Germaniae Historica

S. + number

Charter in Sawyer P. H. Anglo-Saxon Charters, an Annotated List and Bibliography, London: 1968

Whitelock, EHD

Whitelock D. (ed.), English Historical Documents, vol. I, c. 500 – 1042, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1955

Terminology burh

A town or part of a town protected by fortifications

fyrd

A native army, gathered in England

here

A foreign army, invading England

lið

A band of Scandinavian adventurers, being the crew of one or more ships

witan

A gathering of wise men, i.e. a council, usually the king’s council

caput anni

Date of year commencement. There were several year commencement dates in vogue: e.g. annunciation, incarnation, indiction, midwinter and nativity

Annunciation*

25 March

Incarnation

= Nativity 25 December = Annunciation 25 March

Indiction year

Year commencing in September (1 or 24)

Midwinter

25 December

Nativity

25 December

* According to the Florentine convention (calculus florentinus), which was used in England at this time, the Annunciation followed the Nativity/Midwinter. The more logical Pisan convention (calculus pisanus), where the Annunciation precedes the Nativity/Midwinter, is very uncommon although there are instances; I explained its usage in relation to the charter S.882 in a paper I read to the Manchester Centre for AngloSaxon Studies in December 1997.

vi

Introduction during Æthelred’s reign; a study which followed the careers of the Danish warlords Swein Forkbeard and Thorkell the Tall to explain the complex relationship between Scandinavian armies and the English establishment.5

Sources for the Reign of King Æthelred King Æthelred II, known as ‘the Unready’, is a relatively unknown English monarch. Yet there is a substantial and varied range of sources for Æthelred’s 38-year reign, including: • • • •

•

The Anglo-Saxons annals which were written for a revised version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in 1016,1 shortly after King Æthelred’s death; homilies, laws, charters and other documentary evidence created during his reign; numismatic evidence from hoards of English coins discovered in England and, significantly, in other parts of Northern Europe;2 contemporary skaldic verses and the commentary which accompanied the verses when they were transcribed into thirteenthcentury sagas;3 passages in manuscripts, such as the Encomium Emmae Reginae, which derive information directly or indirectly from contemporaries of King Æthelred.

The Angles, Saxons and Jutes invaded England from Jutland and the Saxon province to the south of the Jutland Peninsula during the fifth century. From their early invasions until the time of King Alfred of Wessex, the history of the Anglo-Saxons follows the struggle of various royal families to gain ascendancy over the native population and over their fellow Anglo-Saxons.6 The history of this period, which has been transmitted to us largely by ecclesiastics, is also the history of the AngloSaxon conversion and the early development of Christianity in Anglo-Saxon England.7 This historical progression was interrupted by a series of invasions during what has been termed ‘The First Viking Age’. These invasions left large areas of present-day England under the control of Scandinavian armies that settled in the north and east of the country including the east Mercian region, which became known as the Danelaw. The southern regions of England were controlled by the West Saxon king, Alfred, and his son, Edward the Elder.8

For many decades after his death, a period taking us well into the post-Norman Conquest era, there was written commentary which included imaginative accretion about the events of Æthelred’s reign. Much of this commentary was politically motivated and deliberately derogatory. It has left King Æthelred with the reputation of being one of the worst kings ever to disgrace the throne of England. Æthelred’s reputation is so embedded in the common perception of his reign that it cannot be ignored. This creates a challenging problem for a historian, since King Æthelred, who reigned for thirty-eight years as king of the English and emperor [basileus] of all the peoples of Britain, was highly regarded in his lifetime and was served with loyalty by his subjects for most of those years. He was also respected and served loyally by Viking commanders of his mercenary forces, who included some of the greatest warrior leaders of the Second Viking Age: King Olaf Tryggvason, King Olaf Haraldsson and Earl Thorkell the Tall. The solution to the problem, adopted in this book, is to provide an account of King Æthelred’s reign based on contemporary sources or on sources which can be shown to be derived from contemporary material. Explanations of significant propaganda and imaginative accretion are provided separately, in a chapter entitled ‘Æthelred, the posthumous history’.4

From the time of Alfred and Edward the Elder warfare was endemic and became an accepted way of life for the West Saxon nobility. The economy adapted to this way of life and became dependent on the looting expeditions that supplemented the produce of farming, fishing and trading. Warfare and looting, which extended beyond the confines of present-day England, thus became staples of the West Saxon economy. They were coupled with an extension of West Saxon authority into the east and north of England as their armies gradually established hegemony over those regions. This hegemony should not be termed ‘re-conquest’ since there had never been West Saxon hegemony in all England before the time of King Alfred.9 This new hegemony was the result of a period of regular warfare lasting for over half a century; a period whose end coincided with the death of King Eadred on 23 November 955.10 Following the death of King Eadred, 5 Howard I, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions and the Danish Conquest of England 991 - 1017, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2003. 6 The classic description of this period of Anglo-Saxon history is in Stenton F. M. Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971, pp. 32-73 ‘The Kingdoms of the Southern English’, pp. 7495 ‘Anglian Northumbria’, and pp. 202-38 ‘The Ascendancy of the Mercian Kings’. 7 Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 96-129 ‘The Conversion of the English People’, and pp. 130-76 ‘The English Church from Theodore to Boniface’. Also, Mayr-Harting H. The Coming of Christianity to AngloSaxon England, 3rd. edition, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press. 8 Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 239-76 ‘The Age of Alfred’. 9 Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 320-63 ‘The Conquest of Scandinavian England’. 10 For the date, see Appendix 1: Chronological analysis, below.

The exploration of Æthelred’s reign in this volume complements a study undertaken by the author in an earlier book about the Scandinavian invasions of England 1

Referred to in this book as the ‘Æthelredian Exemplar’. See Appendix 2 for a description and analysis of this source. 2 See Appendix 3 for an appreciation of the numismatic evidence. 3 Snorri Sturluson’s Heimskringla is a major source for these sagas. 4 Chapter 6, below.

vii

the crown passed in succession to his nephews, Eadwig and Edgar, each of whom was in his early teens when he became king. In conjunction with their counsellors, the Witan, these kings ruled the recently acquired provinces through a combination of religious and secular institutions with bishops and newly appointed ealdormen at their head. They also appointed abbots to the most important bishoprics, including Canterbury and York, so that they and the monks who accompanied them could apply Benedictine monastic zeal to the development of Christianity and Royal authority.

fortunately for Christianity that threat was confronted by the Liudolfingers13 in Germany and northern Italy and the House of Cerdic14 in England; ruling families that formed Christian empires based on their military prowess, strong sense of kinship and a robust legal system. In Eastern Europe, the Saxon Liudolfingers fought relentlessly, and often with great success, against the pagan Slavs. However, there were occasions when they suffered military disasters and the Slavs swept away their military and Christian presence east of the River Elbe.15 In Scandinavia, the Danish kings, influenced by their Saxon neighbours, had accepted the benefits of Christianity as early as the mid-tenth century,16 but there remained a strong sympathy for Paganism amongst the people. The people of Norway refused to allow their kings to practice Christianity openly until King Olaf Tryggvason forced public acceptance of Christianity upon them at the end of the tenth century. There were extensive trade and social links between Scandinavia and eastern and northern England, so Paganism continued to have a considerable influence upon the thinking of the inhabitants of these English provinces.17 The north of England tolerated Christianity but was politically drawn to Paganism, taking Norse kings from Dublin or from Norway until the middle of the tenth century, when the submission of the north to the House of Cerdic represented a public acceptance of Christianity as well as the political dominance of southern kings. The Norse people, many of whom were Pagans throughout the tenth century, had settlements in northwest England and great influence in many other Irish Sea locations. For instance, they ruled the Isle of Man and founded trading centres, such as Dublin and Cork, in Ireland. However, by the end of Æthelred’s reign the social and political order throughout England and Scandinavia was predominantly Christian so that when the Dane, Cnut, became king of England in 1017 it was certain that he would rule as a Christian, and he actively promoted Christian institutions throughout northern Europe.

For several decades the ruling families in Northumbria had vacillated in their choice of king and in their perception of the political and economic benefits of having a local king based in York or a distant king based in Wessex. It was not until 954 that the Northumbrians submitted to King Eadred; they then remained loyal to the West Saxon House of Cerdic for the next sixty years. It is likely that King Edgar later made an agreement with Kenneth, king of Scots, whereby ‘Northumbrian’ territory between the Tweed and the Forth, known as Lothian, was ceded to the Scottish king.11 Thus, the boundaries of the territories ruled directly by Edgar and which passed to his sons were very similar to those of present day England. However, since King Edgar and his sons regarded themselves as overlords of all the peoples of Britain, the land ceded was not entirely lost to them. In their charters Edgar and Æthelred II often claimed to be rulers of all the peoples in the British Isles. There were different formulae for expressing this claim but often they did so with the title ‘emperor’. In staking a claim to empire, Edgar and Æthelred usually used the title basileus. In this they were likening themselves to the Byzantine rulers of the Eastern Roman Empire.12 Religion During the reigns of King Edgar and King Æthelred, the English state was Christian and the clergy had enormous social and political influence at all levels of society. However, the ultimate success of Christianity in the northern hemisphere was not certain at the commencement of Æthelred’s reign in 978. Islam had been driven back into southern Spain and southern Italy, but the Christian society in France and Italy was in social and military disarray. There was a significant military threat from Pagans in eastern and northern Europe, but

The Population of England Today, England is a densely populated country, but it was not always so. During the reigns of Edgar (958-75) and his sons, Edward (975-78) and Æthelred II (978-1016), climate and economic conditions were favourable, the population increased and more land was brought into 13 Liudolf of Saxony was succeeded in the direct male descent by the emperors Henry the Fowler, Otto the Great, Otto II, and Otto III. 14 Cerdic was the founder of the West Saxon dynasty which ruled England. 15 Tschan F. J. (trans.), Adam of Bremen: History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, New York: Columbia University Press, 1959, pp. 83-5, Bk. II, cc. xlii (40) – xliv (42). The most disastrous setback to Saxon ambitions east of the Elbe was in 982-3; see Whitton, ‘Society of Northern Europe’, p.152 16 The Danes were mostly pagan until King Harald Gormsson (Bluetooth) was converted to Christianity in about 965, although Adam of Bremen refers to missionary activity in Denmark before that: Tschan, Adam of Bremen, Bk. I, cc. lv (57) – lix (61), pp. 49-51 and Bk. II, cc. iii (3) – iv (4), pp. 55-7. 17 Monastic foundations influenced the development of Christianity in the Danelaw, during the reigns of Edgar and Æthelred, to combat paganism: see Chapter 1, below.

11

Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 370, 418 and n. 2. Also, Giles J. A. (trans.), Roger of Wendover’s Flowers of History, formerly ascribed to Matthew Paris, vol. I Part One, 447 to 1066 AD, Felinfach: Llanerch Publishers facsimile reprint, 1993, p. 264. 12 ‘Basileus’ is often to be found in the king’s titles in the preamble to the charters. Examples for King Edgar include S 673, S 682, S 683, S 685, S 689, S 695, S 699, S 700, S 701, S 702, S 706, S 709, S 710, S 711, S 714, S 716, S 717, S 718, S 719, S 722, S 724, S 727, S 731, S 739, S 744, S 745, S 746, S 747, S 749, S 751, S 754, S 756, S 757, S 758, S 759, S 761, S 762, S 764, S 767, S 771, S 776, S 779, S 780, S 782, S 786, S 787, S 788, S 789, S 792, S 793, S 794, S 796, S 799, S 800, S 801, S 805, S 807, S 814, S 815, S 818, S 820, S 821, S 824, S 825. Examples for King Æthelred include: S.834, S.835, S.836, S.838, S.840, S.841/S.1587, S.844, S.845, S.846, S.848, S.849, S.859, S.861, S.864, S.868, S.873, S.876, S.880, S.888, s.889, S.893, S.895, S.896, S.907.

viii

cultivation. However, the total population of England is unlikely to have exceeded two million people and may have been nearer to one million. Writing about the population of England at the end of the eleventh century, Darby says: ‘An estimate around 1.5 million may be not far from the truth.’18 One difficulty in estimating population size is the existence of a large but indeterminate number of slaves.19

It was very different in the early Middle Ages, when death was a constant expectation. Women might die in childbirth, a high proportion of children might be expected to die before their fifth birthday, and thereafter the incidence of death was random up to the age of fiftyfive. Although, as now, the human body was capable of living to the age of seventy and beyond, such an age was a rare occurrence and, in practice, there would have been few people over fifty-five years old. Some diseases might kill quickly but others might take a few years before an inevitable death.25 Thus, King Edgar’s death on 8 July 97526 was unexpected, whereas King Eadwig’s councillors were apparently in a position to anticipate his death when they acknowledged his brother Edgar as king of the Mercians in 957;27 a year before Eadwig’s death on 1 October 958.28

Much of the population was scattered about the country in homesteads and small villages. During this period, there was a shift in comparative economic wealth from Wessex in the south and southwest to the Danelaw in the east of the country with the result that parts of the east of England contained areas with higher population densities than elsewhere. There were centres of population such as London, which was increasing in size and prosperity at this time and held a pivotal position between Wessex and the Danelaw, but its total population was only about 10,000,20 and, at that, London was much the largest centre of population in the country. Other centres with populations exceeding 5,000 included Winchester, York, Lincoln, Norwich, Oxford and possibly Thetford; centres with populations of about 2000 included Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, Chester, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Northampton, Bedford, Buckingham, Stamford, Wallingford, Dunwich, Ipswich, Maldon, Canterbury, Sandwich, Lewes, Chichester, Hythe, Dover, Southampton, Hastings, Exeter, Bath and Shaftesbury.21 There are difficulties associated with estimating the populations, particularly those of London and Winchester.22 However, it is reasonable to use figures based on the Domesday survey at the end of the eleventh century to provide an indication of the population numbers during Æthelred’s reign. The important matter for an understanding of the history of the period is that, by modern standards, populations were tiny. Also, the areas occupied were tiny by modern standards. Even London was contained within approximately one square mile, being the area bounded by the old Roman fortifications and the north bank of the Thames.23 It is because population levels were so small that invading armies of a few hundred and, later, a few thousand men could have such a significant political influence and were so difficult to deal with during King Æthelred’s reign.

Terminology It is sometimes difficult to find words to match a meaning for circumstances appertaining a thousand years ago, especially when language has evolved and changed as drastically as English. The term ‘Viking’ has become a generic term for people who are described as ‘Scandinavian’ in this book; reserving the word ‘Viking’ to signify a raider, its original more limited meaning. Scandinavians were seafarers and would join together in a lið to go on Viking raids. A lið might be one ship and its crew, or might be more than one ship. In forming a plural the word ‘liðs’ has been preferred to the appropriate declension of the word. Several ships together formed a raiding army. The Old English language distinguished between a raiding army, here, and an army raised locally, fyrd, and these Old English words have been used to avoid confusion, especially in translating the various versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Many English towns had defences, which usually included wooden palisades. The area within those defences was the ‘burh’, a meaning which has been retained when using the word in this book. Although it is convenient to use the word ‘England’ to describe the territory ruled directly by King Æthelred and his father, Edgar, it is worth remembering that Æthelred regarded himself as the ruler of ‘peoples’; hence he was king of the English and emperor [basileus] of all the peoples of Britain. When, very occasionally, he used the term ‘England’, as he did for instance in a treaty known as II Æthelred which he made with the leaders of a Scandinavian army, he was referring to territory occupied by some of the people that he ruled.

Timor Mortis24 It is difficult for a modern reader to empathise with the medieval concept of death. Because we enjoy the benefits of clean water supplies, warm housing, and advances in medical science, death is firmly associated with old age. 18 Darby H. C. Domesday England, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977, p. 91-4. 19 For the difficulty in estimating the number of slaves, see Darby, Domesday England, pp.72-4. 20 Darby, Domesday England, p. 303. 21 Darby, Domesday England, pp. 302-9, discusses boroughs and their populations. 22 Darby, Domesday England, p. 60. 23 Darby, Domesday England, p. 303 and p. 304, Figure 104. 24 ‘Fear of Death’.

25 An obvious such disease is tuberculosis, which is vary rare today in Britain, but was not so before the discovery of antibiotics. There is evidence of the disease in Britain from Roman times and DNA tests on some human remains from Dorset have provided evidence of its existence in Dorset in c. 300 B.C.: report in ‘The Times’, 12 December 2002. 26 See Appendix 1: Chronological analysis. 27 ASC CB s.a. 957. ASC D records this event when noting Eadwig’s succession s.a. 955. 28 See Appendix 1: Chronological analysis.

ix

x

1 Æthelred the Ætheling: c.968 - 978 Æthelred’s Family The Ætheling Æthelred, who was to reign as ‘Æthelred II, king of the English, emperor of all the peoples of Britain’ from 978 until 1016, was born c.968. Chronicle evidence suggests a date between March and July of that year. Æthelred was the son of Edgar the Peaceable and a direct descendent of King Alfred the Great. Illustration 1 shows the line of succession from Alfred to Æthelred. Through Alfred, Æthelred’s ancestry could be traced to the AngloSaxon invasions of England and to a Saxon, Cerdic, who established the kingdom of the West Saxons. The rules of succession were not clearly defined and on the death of a king the chief counsellors of the realm, the Witan, met to choose his successor from among his family. Illustration 1 shows that the Witan often chose the brother of the previous king, choosing from the next generation only when the youngest brother died. Since King Edgar had no surviving brother and his elder brother, King Eadwig, had died young, leaving no legitimate issue, it follows that the Ætheling Æthelred was likely to become king if he survived his elder brothers. ‘Legitimacy’ was a complex subject in a period when a king could have many liaisons without offending accepted morality. Liaisons with women of low birth produced illegitimate offspring but liaisons with women of higher birth could be more problematic and the legitimacy of their offspring usually depended upon the existence of a ‘marriage’ settlement. Since such settlements might not be well documented, there was room for debate though, in practice, a king’s recognition of a child’s ‘legitimacy’ during his lifetime meant that his Witan would do so at his death. In deciding the succession, the Witan would give preference to a man in his teens or older who could exercise royal authority. It was an age when people often died at what we would regard as a very young age; hence the tendency to choose a brother rather than the son of a dead king. Æthelred’s mother, Ælfthryth, was the daughter of Ealdorman Ordgar of Devon.29 As a young girl she had been married to Æthelwold, who became ealdorman of East Anglia, in succession to his father, in 956. This made him an important figure at court and it is likely that his wife, Ælfthryth, was also an influential member of the court circle; for, although we do not have a contemporary record of her activities at this time, her energy, character and influence over the king were amply demonstrated 29

ASC DF. ASC F probably derived this information from the exemplar of ASC E. If so, the source must have been in existence before 1016 and was probably contemporary.

later. In 962,30 Ealdorman Æthelwold died. Some two years later, in late 964 or during 965,31 King Edgar, married the young widow.32 Before long Queen Ælfthryth presented her new husband with a son, the Ætheling Edmund. Later, Queen Ælfthryth had another son, the Ætheling Æthelred: no other children of her marriage to Edgar are recorded as surviving. King Edgar33 already had a ‘recognised’ son, Edward, by an earlier marriage, so it is likely that Queen Ælfthryth’s marriage settlement acknowledged that if she had a son he would be recognised as Edgar’s heir.34 Certainly, this seems to have been the understanding at court and is evidenced in documents with a contemporary provenance. A charter dated 966 shows the difference in the status of Edgar’s sons. It records King Edgar’s refoundation and grant of privileges to New Minster, Winchester. Ælfthryth’s son, Edmund, witnesses it immediately after the king and the archbishop of Canterbury. Although Edward also witnesses the charter, he does so after his younger half-brother, and whereas Edmund is accorded the title clito legitimus prefati regis filius, Edward is merely described as clito eodem rege procreatus.

30

Appendix 1: Chronological analysis. Appendix 1: Chronological analysis. 32 The twelfth century account of John of Worcester, s.a. 964, has been followed in stating that she was the widow of Ealdorman Æthelwold. John’s Chronicle seems to infer that her marriage to Edgar followed closely upon the death of Æthelwold, but this cannot be so. There is a twelfth century story that Edgar murdered Æthelwold so that he could marry Ælfthryth, but this is clearly post-Norman Conquest propaganda. See Luard H. R. (ed.), Annales Monasterii de Wintonia (A. D. 519-1277), Annales Monasterii de Waverleia (A. D. 1-1291), Annales Monastici vol. II, Rolls Series, London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green, 1865 Luard, ‘Annales Wintonia’, p. 12 for a version of this story, which is derived, via another manuscript, from a twelfth-century original that is no longer extant. 33 A detailed study of Edgar’s reign may be found in Scragg Donald (ed.), Edgar, King of the English, 959-975: New Interpretations, Publications of the Manchester Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies, Manchester: Boydell Press, 2008. However, this chapter follows the chronological analysis and source interpretations which are explained in footnotes and Appendix 1, below. 34 Marriage was a ‘legal’ undertaking blessed by the Church. See for instance the family law ‘concerning the betrothal of a woman’ in Whitelock, EHD, no. 51, p. 431. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this law are of particular interest but do not provide an example of a marriage agreement made by a widower with children. The best example we have of this is the description of Queen Emma’s agreement with King Cnut giving precedence to a son of their marriage over sons of Cnut by an earlier marriage: Campbell A. (ed.), Encomium Emmae Reginae, Camden 3rd Series, vol. LXXII, London: Royal Historical Society, 1949; reissued with a supplementary introduction by Simon Keynes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, Bk II, c. 16. 31

The Reign of Æthelred II

1. The West Saxon House of Cerdic: 871 to 1016 Alfred the Great 871-99 | Edward the Elder 899-924 ____________________________________|_____________ | | | | Edith(1) Æthelstan 924-39

Edmund 939-46 ___________|___________ | |

Eadwig 955-8(3)

Eadred 946-55(2)

Edgar 958-75(4) _____________|__________ | | | | Edward Edmund(5) Æthelred 975-8(6) 978-1016

Edith (1)

Edward the Elder’s daughter, Edith, married the Emperor Otto I (the Great). Their eldest son was Liudolf, duke of Swabia. (2) King Eadred died 23 November 955. Appendix 1: Chronological analysis. (3) King Eadwig died 1 October 958. Appendix 1: Chronological analysis. (4) King Edgar died 8 July 975. Appendix 1: Chronological analysis. (5) The Ætheling Edmund died between September and December 971. Appendix 1. (6) King Edward (the Martyr) died 10 June 978. Appendix 1: Chronological analysis.

So Edmund is the ‘legitimate son of the king’ and Edward is simply ‘begotten by the king’.35 When this charter was witnessed, Edmund was an infant36 and Æthelred was not yet born. The re-foundation was the focus of a great celebration in which the king and the whole of his family played a prominent part, which explains why the charter was witnessed by Edgar’s baby son and also by Edgar’s wife and grandmother. Queen Ælfthryth is described in the charter as Ælfðryð legitima prefati regis conjuncx; the stress on her being the

‘legitimate wife of the king’ being a reminder that Edgar’s former wife may still have been alive. Political support for Queen Ælfthryth and for her sons, as heirs to the throne, is also evidenced in the will of Ealdorman Ælfheah, which was worded so as to ignore the existence of the Ætheling Edward and leaves bequests to Queen Ælfthryth and her sons by the king, Edmund and Æthelred.37 So, although Edward was recognised as the king’s son, and therefore throne-worthy, it is apparent that his political status was inferior to that of Ælfthryth’s son, Edmund.

35 S.745, [Birch W. D. G. Cartularium Saxonicum: Collection of Charters related to Anglo-Saxon History, vol. III, A.D. 948-975, London: Charles J. Clark, 1893, no. 1190, A.D. 966]. For a more detailed analysis of the subscriptions to this charter, see Appendix 1: Chronological analysis, below, section headed: ‘Between September and December 971: Death of the Ætheling Edmund’. Clito is translated as ‘prince’ or ‘atheling’ in Latham R.E. Revised Medieval Word-List from British and Irish Sources, London: The British Academy, Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 92. 36 He ‘witnesses’ with the words ‘crucis signaculum infantili florens etate propria indidi manu.’ - I placed the sign of the cross with my own hand in the flower of my infancy.

The political understanding about the succession was upset between September and December 971, when the

37 S.1485. [Birch, Cartularium Saxonicum, no. 1174, not dated]. The will of Ealdorman Ælfheah makes a bequest to þam yldran Æþælingæ þæs cyngæs suna, which, in context must refer to Edmund: see Yorke, ‘Æthelwold and the Politics of the Tenth Century’, p. 84 which also explains the significance of this will and Ælfheah’s support for the queen and her two sons.

2

Æthelred the Ætheling: c.968 – 978 Ætheling Edmund died.38 He was about five years old. His death is recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, version A, in an annal that has a contemporary provenance and it is also recorded in annals deriving from the Æthelredian Exemplar which is of later provenance, when the significance of Edmund’s death had become even more apparent. The existence of an annal record of his death in a contemporary source indicates that the death of the Ætheling Edmund was a political blow to his parents and the royal court, as well as being a cause of personal grief, and it is likely that he was a young boy of personable character. However, since King Edgar was only about 28 years old when Edmund died, the full political implications of the ætheling’s death were not immediately apparent.

king’s relative Ælfhere41 who was made ealdorman of Mercia in 956; Ælfhere’s brother Ælfheah42 who had the position of royal seneschal; Byrhtnoth43 ealdorman of Essex from 956; and Æthelwold44 ealdorman of East Anglia from 956. They owed their advancement to family connections and their youth meant that other councillors were probably more influential at this time. The comparatively large number of charters surviving from Eadwig’s reign indicates that the Witan was advancing and enriching men in lesser positions of authority,45 effectively, shifting power to a new class of men in a short space of time.46 Churchmen such as Archbishop Dunstan and Bishop Æthelwold played an influential role in the Witan particularly as they had already had considerable political experience when so many secular appointments, including the ealdormen, were going to new men. The development of royal authority in the provinces at this time was supported by Benedictine monastic reform and the increasing influence of the Church over the lives of the people.

Royal Authority During the second half of the tenth century and the early years of the eleventh, England was ruled by an oligarchy of, mainly, West Saxon families, which were inter-related through marriage alliances with each other and with the West Saxon royal family. The king ruled through his council, or Witan, which was dominated by members of these families. However, it was the king’s prerogative to choose whose advice he would follow, so he had immense de facto authority.

Archbishop Dunstan Dunstan, who was to become archbishop of Canterbury and was later recognised as a saint, was of noble birth and related to the royal family. He became a councillor to King Edmund, who made him abbot of Glastonbury.47 There, he promoted Benedictine monastic reform and taught pupils who, like him, were to have an important impact on the monastic and clerical reform movement.48 When Eadred succeeded his brother Edmund as king in 946, Dunstan’s influence in the king’s council increased and he was described as the king’s ‘chief advisor’.49 When Eadred’s nephew, Eadwig, became king in 955, Dunstan found it difficult to deal with the new regime and opposed some of the new people who surrounded the young king. It appears that he behaved in a high-handed manner and attracted the enmity of the king’s wife and

After the submission of Northumbria in 95439, the Witan faced a major problem with social, economic and political ramifications: there was nowhere for the king and his nobles to conduct a war and gather loot. For over half a century the kings of the West Saxon dynasty had been conducting expeditions into the Danelaw and the northern provinces, but the Danelaw had long been secured and there was every indication that the Northumbrians intended to maintain the peaceful submission to the West Saxon king which they had initiated in 954. This meant that the king and his nobles could no longer maintain themselves on ‘enemy’ territory during the campaigning season. So means had to be found to supply the needs of a court, which, for the most part, remained in the Thames Valley, and to supply the needs of ministers of various ranks who were given the task of administering the ‘empire’ of their king. These new requirements were dealt with in a series of meetings in the year 956, in which new ealdormen were appointed and a massive redistribution of landed property rights was undertaken.40

41

Keynes Diplomas, p. 50 and n. 98. Ealdorman Ælfhere died in 983: ASC CDE s.a. 42 Ælfheah became ealdorman of Central Wessex in 959. He died before King Edgar in 971, or possibly 972: see Whitelock D. (ed. and trans.), Anglo-Saxon Wills, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930, p. 121. Ealdorman Ælfhere and his brother, Ealdorman Ælfheah, are described as propinquus [‘relative’] of either King Eadwig or King Edgar: Searle, Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles, pp. 402-3. Their relationship to each other is evidenced in Ælfheah’s will, which leaves land to Ælfhære his breðær, and is witnessed by Ælfhære ealdorman, presumably the same person: S.1485 and Birch, Cartularium Saxonicum, no. 1174. The will is also witnessed by Queen Ælfthryth, to whom there is also a legacy, and Bishop Æthelwold. 43 Keynes Diplomas, p. 50 and n. 99. Ealdorman Byrhtnoth was killed at the battle of Maldon in 991: ASC CDE s.a. 44 For the death of Ealdorman Æthelwold in 962, see Appendix I: Chronological analysis. 45 The number of charters in a short period of time is impressive: see Keynes Diplomas, pp. 46-69 and Figure 2. 46 Yorke B. (ed.) Bishop Æthelwold: His Career and Influence, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1988, pp. 75-7. 47 Stubbs W. (ed.), Memorials of Saint Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury, Rolls Series, London: Longman & Co., 1874, pp. 21-5. 48 Stubbs, Memorials of St Dunstan, pp. 25-6. 49 Stubbs, Memorials of St Dunstan, p. 29.

Appointments to some of the highest positions in the land went to young relatively untried men. However, they were men who presided over a long period of peace and increasing economic prosperity. They included: the 38

Appendix 1: Chronological analysis. ASC E s.a. 954. The same annal appears in ASC D s.a. 954 and must have been in the Æthelredian Exemplar: see Appendix 2, c. 7, below. 40 Keynes S. The Diplomas of King Æthelred ‘the Unready’ 978-1016: A Study in their Use as Historical Evidence, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd series, vol. 13, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980, p. 47, Figure 2 shows the extent of activity at the beginning of Eadwig’s reign. The diplomas are further analysed by Keynes on pp. 48-70 and Figures 3-6. 39

3

The Reign of Æthelred II mother-in-law. Dunstan’s earliest biographer50 explained the cause of this enmity. He wrote that the new king grew weary during the coronation celebrations and withdrew from the hall. Then, Dunstan and his brother, Bishop Cynsige, were sent to find him and bring him back to the feast. They discovered the young king, his crown cast on the floor, dallying with two women (in fact, the king’s future wife, Ælfgifu, and mother-in-law, Æthelgifu; ladies of noble family and reputation). Dunstan unceremoniously accused the king of neglecting his duties and forced him back to the coronation celebrations. Unsurprisingly, soon after this Dunstan was banished from court; he lost control of his property and his friends suffered.51 No doubt advised by friends and members of his family, he decided that it was politic to go abroad to further his monastic education, probably at the monastery of Blandinium, at Ghent in Flanders.52 There, Dunstan was exposed to the views of reformist monks, and he was also able to recognise the political significance of the monastic movement to secular authorities such as Count Arnulf of Flanders and to the Emperor Otto I (the Great), who was asserting his authority to the east and north of his Saxon homeland whilst at the same time promoting Christianity to the heathen Slavs and Danes. Dunstan was not the only member of the king’s council who had difficulty agreeing with the new king and an opposition party grew up around the king’s younger brother, Edgar. When Dunstan returned to England, after approximately a year, he became Edgar’s close friend and adviser. Through Edgar’s influence and that of the councillors around Edgar, Dunstan was advanced from being abbot of Glastonbury to the bishoprics of Worcester and London.53 In accepting these two appointments, it seems that Dunstan was prepared to ignore Canon Law by holding them in plurality. So, at that time, it could be argued that there were selfish and unedifying features in the opposition to the king.

the see of Canterbury. He witnessed a charter in this capacity in 958.55 It seems that the archbishop was not acceptable to Edgar, who ‘persuaded’ Byrhthelm to ‘return’ to the bishopric of Wells in 959 so that King Edgar’s close associate, Dunstan, could be made archbishop of Canterbury. These cavalier actions demonstrated the power of the secular authority over the Church and can be compared with Otto the Great’s imperial policy in relation to the Papacy and many other facets of Church government.56 Dunstan received his pallium from Pope John XII, in Rome, on 21 September 960.57 It was not until early in the year 961 that Dunstan gave up his bishopric of Worcester in favour of Oda’s nephew, Oswald, and in the same year he seems to have consecrated Ælfstan as bishop of London.58 There was much that could be regarded as unsatisfactory in the conduct of Edgar and Dunstan at this time. As it happens, Dunstan’s translation to Canterbury proved a fortunate choice and he became one of the best loved and most revered of the English saints. But at the time of his appointment, and considering the circumstances of that appointment, the king’s actions must have offended many people. However they had achieved their control over the Church in England, Edgar and Dunstan proceeded to use it wisely. It is probable that each man had his own agenda, but their objectives coincided. It is often overlooked that, at this time, Christianity’s triumph over paganism in the north was still to be achieved. Harald Gormsson, king of Denmark, had not yet accepted conversion and his people were for the most part pagan.59 Despite the best efforts of Hakon the Good, Norway had remained a pagan land. The Scandinavian raiders, traders and settlers, who had a profound influence on Northern England and the Danelaw, were predominantly pagan. The Church in the north of England lacked wealth and the churchmen who wrote the chronicles for this period probably exaggerated its influence. Dunstan, the former abbot of Glastonbury, believed in monastic reform and the need to create more monastic foundations for the advancement of Christianity. Edgar, who was much influenced by the

During 957 or 958 Archbishop Oda of Canterbury died.54 The succession to the see of Canterbury, following Oda’s death, suggests that there was dissention between the close confidants of the king and the supporters of Edgar. At some time during 958, probably before King Eadwig’s death on 1 October, Bishop Byrhthelm was translated to

55 A charter, S. 652, which is regarded as ‘authentic’ by several authorities, is dated 958, indiction 2 (indiction year September 958 to September 959), thus dating it between September and December 958 and it is witnessed by Byrhthelm as bishop of Canterbury. Byrhthelm also witnessed a charter, as bishop of Canterbury, S.660, which is dated 959, indiction 2 (indiction year September 958 to September 959), thus dating it between late December 958 and September 959. This charter is regarded as authentic by several authorities. 56 Perhaps the ultimate example of his attitude to the Church occurred when the Emperor Otto the Great deposed Pope John XII in December 963. 57 Brooks, Early History, p. 244. 58 Brooks, Early History, p. 247. 59 It is apparent from the accounts of Widukind and Ruotger that the official conversion took place c. 965, although Widukind acknowledges that there had been earlier conversions by missionary visits: Waitz D. G. (ed.), Widukindi Res Gestae Saxonicae, MGH III, Hannover: 1839, pp. 408-67. A more recent edition with a German translation is in Bauer A. and R. Rau (eds.), Widukindi Res Gestae Saxonicae: Quellen zur Geschichte der Sachsischen Kaiserzeit, in Ausgewählte Quellen zur Deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters, in Verbindung mit vielen Fachgenossen ed. R. Buchner und F-J. Schmale, Band 8, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977, c. lxv, p. 168.

50 The author describes himself as ‘B, a lowly native of Saxony’, [B. vilisque Saxonum indigena]. His work is dedicated to Archbishop Ælfric of Canterbury; so it can be dated as completed between 995 and 1005. Stubbs, Memorials of St Dunstan, p. 3. 51 Stubbs, Memorials of St Dunstan, pp. 32-4. Keynes, Diplomas, p. 49, makes a reasoned assumption that Dunstan was absent from the court soon after the coronation, which probably took place on 27 January 956. 52 Adelard, the author of the second biography of Dunstan, written within 23 years of the saint’s death, claimed that Arnulf, count of Flanders, was Dunstan’s patron whilst he was abroad and that the monastery of Blandinium, the writer’s own home, was Dunstan’s temporary place of asylum: Stubbs, Memorials of St Dunstan, p. lxii and p. 59. 53 Stubbs, Memorials of St Dunstan, pp. 36-7. Note that Dunstan’s biographer, ‘B’, has little knowledge of the events of Dunstan’s life as bishop and archbishop. See Stubbs, Memorials of St Dunstan, p. cii. and Brooks N. The Early History of the Church of Canterbury Christ Church from 597 to 1066, London: Leicester University Press, 1984, pp. 245-6. 54 The more likely date being 2 June 957. Appendix I: Chronological analysis.

4

Æthelred the Ætheling: c.968 – 978 activities of his German cousins, wanted to emulate the methods of Otto the Great. Edgar wanted to develop monastic foundations that could bring peace, prosperity and Christian unity to his ‘empire’ of disparate peoples. Success was not certain when they started down this path, but it became far more likely after Dunstan and Edgar encouraged Abbot Æthelwold of Abingdon in his mission to transform the Church, particularly in the east of England. In 963 a vacancy occurred in the see of Winchester and Abbot Æthelwold, a former pupil of Dunstan, was chosen to take over the bishopric. He was already an influential man and a trusted councillor of King Edgar. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle s.a. 963 says:

endowment of land. Æthelwold brought clerics from Glastonbury, Winchester and London to Abingdon and soon gathered a flock of monks around him (c. 7). King Eadred helped plan the new monastic buildings, but work was not undertaken until the reign of King Edgar (c. 8). It is noticeable that Ælfric makes no mention of King Eadwig, although there is charter evidence that he too helped in the endowment of Abingdon.62 Æthelwold sent a monk, Osgar, to the monastery of St Benedict at Fleury (on the Loire) to learn about the rule of St Benedict so that he could expound it to the monks at Abingdon (c. 10). Then King Edgar gave him the bishopric of Winchester and he was consecrated by Archbishop Dunstan (c. 11). There, with King Edgar’s permission, he expelled the canons from the Old Minster at Winchester and brought in monks from Abingdon and, in the words of the Life was ‘both their abbot and bishop’ (c. 12). Next he expelled the canons from the New Minster at Winchester and brought in monks under Abbot Æthelgar (c. 16). He made Osgar abbot of Abingdon then started on a campaign of founding, or re-founding, monasteries in the east of England: Ely, Burgh (Peterborough) and Thorney (c. 17). Thus, in the words of the Life:

In that same year Abbot Æthelwold succeeded to the bishopric of Winchester, and he was consecrated on the vigil of St Andrew, (which) day was a Sunday.60 Bishop Æthelwold Bishop Æthelwold was a most influential political and religious figure during the reign of King Edgar and during the first period of King Æthelred’s reign. We are fortunate in having an early biography of Æthelwold, of which there are two versions. The shorter version was written by Ælfric, abbot of Eynsham, and is usually dated between 1004 and 1006 because it is addressed to Cenwulf, bishop of Winchester 1005 to 1006, and Ælfric refers to the passing of twenty years since the death of St Æthelwold, who died in 984, hence the earlier date. The other version was written by Wulfstan, the precentor of Winchester according to William of Malmesbury. There is debate about whether Ælfric has provided an abbreviated version of Wulfstan’s account or whether Wulfstan has provided an extended version of Ælfric’s account. Either way, this Life of St Æthelwold incorporates passages from a Life that was written in 996 at about the time of the translation of the saint’s body.61

it was brought to pass with the king’s consent that monasteries were founded everywhere among the English people, partly by the counsel and action of Dunstan and partly by that of Æthelwold, some with monks and some with nuns, living according to the rule under abbots and abbesses.63 Ælfric’s Life of St Æthelwold, not surprisingly, makes Æthelwold the prime mover in all the events described. He is also careful to acknowledge the importance of St Dunstan to the reform movement. It is interesting to compare Ælfric’s account of some of the changes with an account in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle s.a 964, which emphasises King Edgar’s role:

According to Ælfric’s Life, Æthelwold was born in Winchester during the reign of King Edward (c.2). He was taught by Bishop Ælfheah of Winchester, during King Æthelstan’s reign and then extended his learning, as a monk, at Glastonbury under the direction of St Dunstan (cc. 5-6). King Eadred, with Dunstan’s agreement, made Æthelwold abbot of Abingdon and gave it a large

Here (in this year) King Edgar drove the priests of the burgh from the Old Minster and from New Minster; and from Chertsey and from Milton (Abbas); and planted them with monks. And he appointed Abbot Æthelgar as abbot of New Minster, and Ordberht for Chertsey, and Cyneweard for Milton.64

60

29 November. ASC A s.a. 963. For the Old English, see Bately J. M. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a Collaborative Edition, vol. 3, MS A, a semi-diplomatic edition with introduction and indices, Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1986. The succession of Winchester bishops seems to have been of particular importance to the writer of the A version of the ASC at this time: see Bately, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle MS A, pp. xiii–xiv. Æthelwold’s succession was not recorded as a contemporary event in other versions of the ASC, although information about Æthelwold’s succession to Winchester and his expulsion of canons from the Old Minster was added to the exemplar of ASC E s.aa. 963 and 964, probably when it was being compared with ASC A during the preparation of ASC F. The omission of this information from ASC D is evidence that it was not in ASC E’s exemplar in 1016. The ASC E annals give Æthelwold and Dunstan the title ‘saint’; further evidence that they are not a contemporary record. 61 See Appendix I: Chronological analysis for evidence of the earlier Life, written in 996.

62 The charters are: S.583, S.584, S.605, S.607, S.658, and S.663. (S. 583, S 607 and S. 658 are, however, considered doubtful or spurious) See also, Æthelred’s charter, S.876. 63 Whitelock’s translation in EHD, p. 836. The chapter references in the preceding paragraph are to Ælfric’s Life of St. Æthelwold in Whitelock EHD, pp. 831-9. The Latin text of the Life is edited in Stevenson, Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, pp. 255-66. 64 ASC A s.a. 964, See also Whitelock EHD, p. 207. The writer of ASC A means Winchester when he writes ‘of the burgh’ [‘on Ceastre’].

5

The Reign of Æthelred II children and they were then inclined to seek secure positions for their offspring in the Church, which could be detrimental to the control that the king and his ministers wanted to assert through their ability to appoint abbots and bishops.

The Role of Monasticism in the Development of Royal Authority It is clear that Edgar and his chief advisors intended to pursue a radical policy. It was probably from Dunstan that Edgar had learned about German and Flemish use of church and monastic endowment as a means of establishing Christian centralised authority and extending it into newly conquered lands. Thus the church and monastic endowment, and, in particular, the creation of the archbishopric of Magdeburg in 962,65 by Otto the Great might have given direction to Edgar and his advisors regarding what was required in the dioceses of York and ‘Danish’ East Anglia. Edgar and Æthelwold were even more radical when they used monasticism as the means by which the king and his bishop took control of the established churches in the Wessex diocese of Winchester by replacing cathedral clerics with monks.66 It is certain that Æthelwold advocated this policy but it is possible that Dunstan was opposed to it, since it was not pursued in churches other than those under the authority of the bishop of Winchester. King Edgar accepted this pluralistic programme for the control of cathedral chapters and may have remained neutral on this aspect of monasticism, whilst encouraging the foundation or refoundation of monasteries and encouraging the development of greater discipline within monastic communities. Edgar took on the role of protector of monasteries and Queen Ælfthryth was made protectoress of the nunneries and both encouraged Æthelwold in his reforms and in the promulgation of the Regularis Concordia for the direction of monastic foundations under the Benedictine Rule.67 Behind the changes we can see the debate in the Christian community at large about whether the clergy should be celibate or whether they might continue to be married. Although Æthelwold’s actions in Winchester were not emulated by Dunstan, it was an assertion of discipline that underpinned the movement towards celibacy, which was being advocated for the priesthood at this time. So the ‘married’ canons of the Minsters in Winchester were replaced by monks; a policy that was to influence the Church in England and elsewhere.68 There were practical considerations as well as theological arguments for the movement in favour of a celibate clergy. A married clergy produced legitimate

There were obviously personal advantages in making changes at Winchester so far as Æthelwold was concerned. An abbot succeeding to an ‘unreformed’ bishopric would have faced a culture shock. The rule of St Benedict gave him a level of authority in a monastery which would have been lacking to him as a bishop. As bishop he would have had to justify his actions in the cathedral precincts and beyond to incumbent canons who were used to a degree of independence. The wealth at his ‘personal’ command would also have been restricted by comparison with the situation of an abbot. Most of the abbots who became bishops at this time learned to live with these constraints, but Æthelwold was not a man to brook opposition, so his solution to the problem was to remove the canons and replace them with a community of Benedictine monks who were obedient to him. Whatever the debates about whether cathedral chapters should be controlled by canons or monks, King Edgar, Archbishop Dunstan and Bishop Æthelwold were in agreement about the development of monasticism in England. Their unity is evidenced by the promulgation of the Regularis Concordia, measures drawn up under the influence of Æthelwold for the control and discipline of monastic foundations. Already the archbishoprics of Canterbury and York were in the hands of monks, Dunstan and Oswald. King Edgar also promoted many abbots to bishoprics as they fell vacant. Thus, the principle of monastic discipline throughout the Church in England and, by inference, the principle of an unmarried clergy was given strong support. Because we live in a secular society in which religion is not necessarily an essential part of everyone’s life, it is difficult to empathise with a society in which religion pervaded every aspect of life and was, arguably, the essence and purpose of life. For the people of the tenth century time was linear, with beginnings, middles and endings. For most people God’s relationship with them was also linear. There was little recognition of God’s omniscience in this context69 and they perceived God as reacting to events with almost human emotions. Because they lived with faith and were taught to expect Divine intervention in daily events, the people, clerical and lay, had no difficulty in perceiving frequent Divine intervention in human affairs. They went so far as to ask, and expect, God to intervene in the administration of justice with the various trials by ordeal which were prescribed to decide the innocence or guilt of an accused. The mission of a Christian king was to further the work of the Church in saving souls. Conversely, following St

65 A Bull of Pope John XII authorised the creation of the archbishopric in February 962. For a succinct description of the Ottonian system of government through bishops and abbots, see Davis R. H. C. A History of Medieval Europe from Constantine to Saint Louis, London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1957, ‘The Saxon Empire’ pp. 219-27. 66 Banton makes the point that there was a clear distinction in time between the reforms in Wessex, initiated in 964, and the later reforms of the early 970s, which were almost entirely directed at Mercia and Northumbria. He sees the later reforms as part of a deliberate attempt to assert Edgar’s royal authority in these provinces: Banton N. ‘Monastic Reform and the Unification of Tenth-Century England’, in Religion and National Identity, ed. S. Mews, Studies in Church History 18, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1982, pp. 71-85. 67 Yorke B. ‘Æthelwold and the Politics of the Tenth Century’ in Bishop Æthelwold: His Career and Influence, ed. B. Yorke, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1988, pp. 63-88 at p. 82. 68 Thus Archbishop Adelbert of Rheims replaced cannons with monks at Thin-le-Moutier and at Mouzon in 971: Lot F. Les Derniers Carolingiens, Lothaire, Louis V, Charles de Lorraine (954-991): Paris, 1891, p. 67.

69

Thus there was little or no recognition that God, creator of time, exists outside time and knows the beginning, middle and end of all things outside of time. Arguably the restrictions of ‘time’ were - and remain the greatest barrier to the human imagination.

6

Æthelred the Ætheling: c.968 – 978 Paul’s dictate70, the Church expected to assist the king and his ministers in achieving social order and extending the king’s authority, especially if that meant bringing pagan peoples within the family of the Christian Church. Southern recognised this aspect of a king’s authority in the tenth century when he wrote:

supportive of the development of the Church influence in eastern England which helped to cement the unity of a West Saxon hegemony which was centred on the Thames Valley. Certainly, when Æthelwold became bishop of Winchester in 963 and embarked upon his mission to develop monasticism in the east of England he seems to have had equal support from Ælfthryth and her new husband, King Edgar; a support which was acknowledged when Edgar took on the role of protector of monasteries and Queen Ælfthryth was made protectoress of the nunneries.

… the position of a king rested on eternal foundations: he was in the strictest sense God’s anointed, endowed by God with powers which combined important aspects of the powers of bishops and priests, as well as the sanctions of secular rule. He was anointed with the holy oil used in the consecration of priests; he was invested with the ring and staff conferred on bishops, with the power to destroy heresies and to unite his subjects in the Catholic faith; and he received the sword and sceptre with words which gave the highest authority to his use of violence. It was by virtue of this concentration that kings could call themselves – as they could without impropriety in the tenth century – Vicars of Christ;71

As we have seen, early in their marriage, King Edgar was keen to emphasis the legitimacy of Ælfthryth’s position as his queen and there was a general acceptance that her son, Edmund, was being groomed as the natural successor to Edgar. The death of the Ætheling Edmund in 971 seems to have coincided with a diminution in Queen Ælfthryth’s considerable influence at Court. King Edgar was about sixteen years old when he became king and allowed himself to be guided by older counsellors, such as Archbishop Dunstan. In 971 Edgar was about twentyeight; he had exercised royal authority for many years and was becoming increasingly autocratic. He was about to embark upon a policy of personal aggrandisement in which he emphasised the imperial nature of his authority. This policy development, which required the king and his Court to journey about the country and which centralised authority more directly on the king, created tensions within the Witan. It is in this context that the close working relationship which had evolved between Edgar, Æthelwold and Ælfthryth began to break down. Bishop Æthelwold himself sought to retain his personal influence by denouncing the existing devolved political system as a mistake initiated by Edgar’s brother, King Eadwig, during his brief reign. He also questioned the value of some of King Eadwig’s political appointments; a politically dangerous stance since many of the appointees were still in positions of authority and members of the king’s Witan. King Edgar may have found the dissension in his Witan useful; with two parties contending for his ear, he found it easier to make the political changes on which he was intent. This attitude of the king affected the Ætheling Æthelred’s prospects because, following the death of Edmund, King Edgar allowed the prospect of either Edward or Æthelred being his successor; an attitude which itself encouraged the process of political divergence within the Witan.

As Southern pointed out, King Edgar described himself as ‘vicar of Christ’ in 966 in founding his new monastery at Winchester. Fearing lest I should incur eternal misery if I failed to do the will of Him who moves all things in Heaven and Earth, I have – acting as the vicar of Christ - …72 This mode of thinking was as rational to the Christian people of the tenth century as ‘scientific explanations’, based on statistical sampling, are rational in the modern secular world. Queen Ælfthryth’s Influence Anglo-Saxon England was a hierarchical society with a broad base of slaves and those whose lives bordered on slavery. At the top of the hierarchy there were a number of noble families, including the royal family, which were often linked to each other through marriage. As the daughter and wife of ealdormen, Ælfthryth was a member of the top echelon of society. She was a strong personality and, though the social roles of women and men were more clearly defined than they are in our present age, there was no hindrance to her developing political influence. It is likely that she and her first husband, Ealdorman Æthelwold of East Anglia, were

The working relationship between Archbishop Dunstan and Bishop Æthelwold probably changed about this time. Whereas Bishop Æthelwold remained a staunch supporter of Edgar’s third wife, Queen Ælfthryth, and supported the claims of her surviving son, the Ætheling Æthelred, to the succession, Archbishop Dunstan seems to have had a different political agenda, which explains why he opposed Queen Ælfthryth and supported the Ætheling Edward’s claim to the throne when King Edgar died four years later, in 975.

70

‘Every person must submit to the supreme authorities. There is no authority but by act of God, and the existing authorities are instituted by him; consequently anyone who rebels against authority is resisting a divine institution’: Romans 13, v. 1-2, The New English Bible, New Testament: Oxford, 1961, p. 263. 71 Southern R. W. The Making of the Middle Ages, London: Arrow Books, 1959, p. 97. 72 Southern, Making of the Middle Ages, p. 168.

7

The Reign of Æthelred II

2. The Liudolfingers: 919 to 1002 Liudolf, Duke of Saxony | King Henry the Fowler 919-36 | Emperor Otto the Great 936-73 Married (1) Edith (in 929)* Married (2) Adelaide (in 951) | Liudolf duke of Swabia 949-54 | | Otto** duke of Swabia 973-82 Emperor Otto II 973-83 | Emperor Otto III*** 983-1002 * Edith was the daughter of Edward the Elder; therefore, King Edgar’s aunt. ** Duke Otto was also duke of Bavaria 976-82. He died a few months before Emperor Otto II. *** Otto III was three years old when his father died.

The Ætheling Æthelred was only three years old when his brother, Edmund died; old enough to miss his brother but far too young to recognise the political changes which were taking place. His elder half brother, Edward, probably did not feature in Æthelred’s day-to-day life because of the age difference and because, at nine years of age, Edward was probably being brought up within the household of a leading noble or cleric; the most likely candidates for this duty being Ealdorman Ælfhere of Mercia73 or Archbishop Dunstan.

development of West Saxon hegemony in England north of the Thames Valley owed much to the example provided by the Emperor Otto the Great as he strengthened his authority over the Germanic peoples of Saxony, Franconia, Swabia and Bavaria and then extended it into the Slav lands between the Rivers Elbe and Oder. Edgar already recognised that he was emperor (Basileus) of several peoples but his personal itinerary had been restricted to the Thames Valley and formal crown-wearing appears to have taken place at Kingston75. Now, Edgar intended to assert his personal rule more widely by making royal progresses into other parts of his Empire, in line with the pattern being developed by Otto the Great. As a precursor to this, Edgar needed to undertake reform and development of the financial system so that he could support his court and armed forces during royal progresses beyond the Thames Valley.

The Cult of Empire At about the time of the Ætheling Edmund’s death, King Edgar was embarking upon a policy of personal aggrandisement that sought to lay particular emphasis on an imperial style of government over the peoples who inhabited the British Isles. He recognised that there was an affinity between the European Saxons – ‘Old Saxons’74 – and the West Saxons of England and he was related to the Saxon ‘Roman’ emperors through the marriage of his aunt Edith to Otto the Great, as shown in Illustrations 1 and 2. The manner in which Edgar, aided by Dunstan, Oswald and Æthelwold, had harnessed the Benedictine monastic reform movement to the

Monetary Reform Although the royal court was itinerant, for the most part it remained in the Thames Valley and the shires of Wessex.76 There was a need for provisions as it moved from place to place and the king’s own domain and the local food rents to which he was entitled were

73 The important role Ælfhere played in the translation of Edward’s body, described below, suggests that he had been particularly close to him. 74 Recording Edith’s marriage to Otto, ASC D s.a. 924 says that King Æthelstan ‘gave his sister (Edith) overseas to the son of the king of the Old Saxons’ (Otto, who succeeded his father and became the Emperor Otto the Great).

75

Kingston upon Thames, which is mentioned by the ASC in relation to King Æthelstan (s.a. 924) and King Æthelred (s.a. 979). The ASC is not as detailed as the various German Annales, which is the most likely reason why crown-wearing does not feature very often. 76 Hill D. (ed.), An Atlas of Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981, p. 85; see also maps 157-62.

8

Æthelred the Ætheling: c.968 – 978 insufficient. The king was entitled to food rents, taxes and judicial fines throughout the country, but these could only provide a practical solution to the problem of maintaining his court in the south if there were an efficient monetary system.

changes that had taken place over a timescale of several years. In effect, the king enforced his entitlement to foodrents and other ‘taxes’ from every part of his realm and he did this by requiring payment in silver pennies. This change could not have been brought about without at least two economic components of change being in place: the ready availability of sufficient coins to make payments to the king, and royal expenditure on a scale which could make use of silver coins in increasing quantity.

This problem had existed to a greater or lesser extent throughout the development of West Saxon hegemony in England. King Æthelstan had reformed the currency so that he could make use of his rights in those parts of the country he visited infrequently. This is evident from his laws in which he set down the value of oxen and other creatures. Thus, an ox was worth 30 pence. This could not be a market value since such matters would be regulated by the demand for oxen and by the age and quality of the animals that might be for sale. If not a market value, it must have been a commutation value. It was clearly more practical for a man in the provinces to settle his dues to the king by sending the king 30 silver pence rather than by sending him an ox. With the 30 pence, the king could satisfy his requirements by making purchases locally. Clearly, if the king were intending to make increasing use of silver pence in this way, it was essential that the quality of the coinage should be maintained at a very high level. This is why the laws of Æthelstan dealt with the control of the currency and, if necessary, the punishment of moneyers who failed to uphold every aspect of the currency laws. It is likely that the moneyers were paid for turning silver into pennies for people by being allowed to retain sixteen pennies for each pound weight of silver that they minted.77 It was the continuance of the monetary policy and controls formulated in the laws of Æthelstan that allowed Eadwig and Edgar to maintain their courts in good order, and to reward their followers, despite a long period of peace.

The first component of change was brought about by the reform of the currency such that there was stringent central control over the production of dies and coins. Moneyers could only make coins in accordance with the king’s requirements. These moneyers who made the coins were sited in the towns throughout the country, where they could service local requirements for the production of new coins. Ultimately, the coinage was destined to meet payments to the king, though some coins might pass through several hands locally before the payment of commuted food-rents and ‘taxes’ to the king. The king would only accept payment in the new coinage and so everybody who wanted silver pennies had to obtain them from the recognised moneyers who had the proper dies for their production. However, this system could not have worked if the king had not found the means to stimulate the production of coins by encouraging people to have silver plate changed into coins and by encouraging the importation of silver. The stimulation of production was achieved by making it very profitable for a merchant or noble to bring silver to the moneyers to be changed into coins. The coinage was based on the Anglo-Saxon silver pound weight. This weighed less than the modern avoir du poid pound, being approximately 440 grammes. In theory each pound of silver was made into 256 pennies of which 16 were retained by the moneyer and 240 were given to the provider of the silver. The 240 pennies were accepted by the king as full payment for a pound equivalent of food-rent or tax. King Edgar stimulated the production of silver coins by ordering the moneyers to produce a ‘premium’ of 32 pennies in excess of the ‘normal’ 256 that should have been made from an AngloSaxon pound of silver. Since the king would accept the new coins in full payment of commuted food-rents and ‘taxes’ at a rate of 240 pennies to the pound, this premium represented a significant profit to the providers of the silver and it introduced the concept of a ‘fiduciary’ element into the English silver coinage.80

These economic changes had benign consequences. The ready availability of a coinage, which could be exchanged in commutation of dues to the king, meant that agriculture and manufactured production were stimulated in the south and there was an increase in the south’s trade with the northern provinces, the Danelaw and overseas countries. This benign economic cycle was aided by many years of peace which continued through the reign of King Edgar into the reign of his son, King Æthelred. Overseas trade further benefited as England exported an increasing quantity of wool in exchange for foreign goods and silver.78 A consequence of the long period of peace and increasing economic prosperity was an increase in the power and authority of the monarchy. This in turn fuelled a further reform of the coinage as Edgar asserted his increased authority with a programme of activities that involved him in enormous expenditure during the last few years of his reign. Edgar’s reform of the coinage is usually dated to the year 973,79 although, in fact, the reformed coinage must have been a culmination of fiscal

The second component of change was brought about by King Edgar’s imperial aspirations. It is evident that King Edgar had long been influenced by events on the Continent, particularly the development of imperial power at the court of Otto the Great. However, there was no blind acceptance of foreign precedent. The English

77

Appendix 3: Fiscal policy, below. Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 19-21. See also, Sawyer, ‘The Wealth of England’, pp. 161 and 163. 79 Jonsson K. ‘The Coinage of Cnut’, in The Reign of Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway, ed. A. R. Rumble, London: Leicester University Press, pp. 193-230 at p. 194. 78

80

I explained this in a paper entitled ‘The Fiduciary Element in English Silver Coins in the Late Tenth and Early Eleventh Centuries’, which I read at the Leeds International Medieval Congress in July 1999. Appendix II: Fiscal policy, below, contains a synopsis of this paper and its accompanying notes.

9

The Reign of Æthelred II Witan and the king adapted foreign precedents to meet their perceived requirements. The English church had been reformed and had become an instrument of government, albeit a government which was dedicated to the advancement of the Church and Christianity. The reform had attributes making it unique to England, so, in pursuing imperial ideals, King Edgar also adopted them to English requirements. He employed foreign mercenaries to protect English interests in coastal trading in the Irish Sea and the Channel. Many of the mercenaries were Scandinavians and in this usage of northern mercenaries King Edgar was following precedents that were in being throughout Europe. His mercenaries were settled on land and given provisions but they received part of their payments in silver coins, some of which found their way back to Scandinavian countries where they were hoarded. A few of these hoards were ‘lost’ and rediscovered many hundreds of years later, in modern times.

of royal power and authority, as well as the respect and obedience owed to a king/emperor by his subjects, including lesser kings, ealdormen and bishops. What the young Edward probably did not appreciate was that King Edgar’s ambitions were creating a political divide between those who supported the king’s imperial objectives and those who preferred to maintain a more devolved basis for the government of the provinces. Where Edgar’s aspirations might have led next cannot be known since he died on 8 July 975.83 Though his passing was greatly regretted in retrospect, there may have been many members of Anglo-Saxon ruling families who had misgivings about the political, economic and religious direction of the king’s ambitions in 975. A Divided Witan Political alliances had evolved during Edgar’s reign so that, when the king died, Bishop Æthelwold of Winchester was at the head of a reform party which had favoured massive endowments to monastic foundations and the aggrandisement of the king’s personal authority. There were those who took a more conservative view of Church reform and were uneasy at King Edgar’s policy of aggrandising the monarchy in an imperialistic manner. Opposition, such as it was, found some focus in Dunstan, archbishop of Canterbury, but there was no open rift between king and archbishop and St Dunstan continued to have an important public role in political and ecclesiastical matters. Indeed, it is important to emphasise that this party did not oppose the principle of Church reform, centred upon the development of monasticism and major donations of property rights to the Church, only some of the more extreme measures of reform advocated by Bishop Æthelwold at Winchester. Æthelwold’s measures such as the immediate dispossession of non-celibate clergy from cathedral chapters and some aspects of the politicising of monastic foundations aroused opposition and this was reflected in the political reaction that followed King Edgar’s death.

The employment of mercenaries was only one reason why King Edgar required silver coins. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle informs us of Edgar’s imperial coronation at Bath; an event of great splendour which was intended to impress Edgar’s subjects and also the many peoples who bordered his kingdoms and who shared the sea routes to the south and to the west of England. It seems fairly certain that Edgar maintained a fleet in addition to employing a mercenary army towards the end of his reign and must have gathered enormous forces for what was a show of his imperial power in the West when he chose Chester as a centre at which all the neighbouring kings should do honour to him. The gifts, which he gave, and the cost of lavish entertainment must have been enormous. It is clear that Edgar was very much in tune with the Ottonian imperial model and was centralising more and more power into his own hands. The Ætheling Æthelred was about five years old in 97381 when he attended his father’s imperial coronation at Bath. It must have been a memorable event for him. However, because of his age, he can only have played a limited part in the events. His half-brother Edward, now aged eleven, could have played a more prominent part, befriended as he probably was by Archbishop Dunstan and Ealdorman Ælfhere. We have a detailed description of the coronation ceremony in which the clergy played a prominent part. It can be no coincidence that our source records that, just before his own ‘imperial’ coronation, King Edgar had formed an alliance with the Emperor Otto II.82 Otto II had succeeded his father and had been crowned himself in 973. The royal progress to Chester and the events there were also on a lavish scale and must have made a lasting impression on the Ætheling Æthelred. However, they probably made a greater impression on his elder halfbrother, Edward, and no doubt influenced his perceptions

The death of the Ætheling Edmund in 971 had created problems of precedence as between the two half-brothers, the Æthelings Edward and Æthelred. When King Edgar died on 8 July 975, the Ætheling Edward was about 13 years old and a viable candidate for the succession. The Ætheling Æthelred was much younger, about 7 years old, but his mother, Queen Ælfthryth, a noble lady of great influence and political power argued that the son of a reigning queen should take precedence over a son who had been born before King Edgar’s ‘imperial’ coronation at Bath. This argument accentuated the political division in the Witan, with Bishop Æthelwold’s party supporting Queen Ælfthryth and Æthelred whilst Archbishop Dunstan’s party supported the claim of the Ætheling Edward to the succession. King Edgar’s death appears to have been sudden and unexpected and this gave the party which opposed the pace of reform an opportunity to assert their influence in the Witan. Led by Archbishop

81

For the date, see Appendix 1: Chronological Analysis. Raine J. (ed.), ‘Vita Sancti Oswaldi’ in The Historians of the Church of York and Its Archbishops, vol. I, London: Longman, 1879, pp. 435-8. Otto II was Otto the Great’s younger son; the elder son, Edgar’s cousin Liudolf, had died in 954; but Liudolf’s son Otto was made duke of Swabia in 973 and, at that time, was effectively Otto II’s heir. 82

83

10

Appendix 1: Chronological Analysis.

Æthelred the Ætheling: c.968 – 978 Dunstan, they supported King Edgar’s eldest son, Edward, and had him elected king.

but his second was.89 It is not clear what Nicolas’ authority was for his information.

King Edward

Eadmer used the information from Nicolas as the basis of his account in his Life of Saint Dunstan. Eadmer was, like Osbern, the precentor of Christchurch, Canterbury.90 His Life of Dunstan was probably written before 1120, possibly at least as early as 1109.91 Eadmer repeats the story of Edgar seducing a nun and Dunstan’s anger and Edgar’s penance, but he explains that she was not the mother of Edward.92 William of Malmesbury does not include the story in his own Life of Dunstan but follows Eadmer’s account in his History of the Kings.93 John of Worcester’s Chronicle, written at about the same time, provides much detail about Edgar’s marital arrangements:

In the tenth and eleventh centuries the Church’s authority over marriage was less secure than in later centuries. In effect, marriage was a civil contract which was blessed by the Church and kings often practiced what has been termed ‘serial monogamy’,84 that is, they had one wife but did not wait for death to release them from marriage if they wished to change wives. Before marrying Queen Ælfthryth, Edgar had had previous liaisons, some of which were with noble ladies and were, no doubt, subject to some contractual understanding. One such lady, Wulfthryth, became abbess of Wilton. This lady had given Edgar a daughter, Edith, who died aged 23 in 98485 and was later recognised as a saint.86 An early postNorman Conquest source indicates that Wulfthryth was also the mother of Edgar’s eldest son, the Ætheling Edward. This lineage for the future King Edward the Martyr seemed unsatisfactory to later post-Norman Conquest writers and so they provided a different version of Edward’s birth.87

Edgar, the peaceable king of the English, took to wife the daughter of Ordgar, ealdorman of Devon, Ælfthryth by name, after the death of her husband Æthelwold, the glorious ealdorman of the East Angles, and by her he had two sons, Edmund and Æthelred. He had previously also had by Æthelflæd the Fair, called Eneda (the daughter of the ealdorman, Ordmær), Edward, afterwards king and martyr, and by St Wulfthryth Edith, a virgin most devoted to God.94

In truth, very little is known about King Edward. He was the son of King Edgar but our sources differ about the identity of his mother. Osbern, in his Life of Saint Dunstan,88 says that Edward was the result of an illicit liaison between King Edgar and a nun. If Edward’s mother was Wulfthryth it is probable that she became a nun after Edward’s birth and the denigratory accusation of an illicit liaison is not accurate. However, this early reference to Edward’s mother suggests that she was Wulfthryth and that Edward was, therefore, a full brother of St Edith.

Whether Edward was the full brother of St Edith whose mother, Wulfthryth, had been transferred to a nunnery to facilitate Edgar’s subsequent marriage to Queen Ælfthryth or whether he was the son of Ealdorman Ordmær’s daughter, as later writers suggest, it is certain that he was regarded as a viable candidate to succeed his father, King Edgar, in 975. The reform party was outmanoeuvred on this occasion, the arguments in favour of the younger son’s election proving insufficient to win the day,95 and all the Witan acknowledged the authority of King Edward.96

This version of Edward’s birth was refuted by subsequent writers who say that he was the son of a marriage between King Edgar and the daughter of Ealdorman Ordmer. The refutations are based on a letter from Nicolas, a Winchester monk, to Eadmer. Nicolas says that King Edgar’s first wife was Ethelfreda, daughter of Ordmer, and that she was mother of Edward. Nicolas says that Edgar’s second wife was Ælfthryth, daughter of Ealdorman Ordgar, and she was the mother of Æthelred. Nicolas also says that Edgar delayed his consecration because he felt himself unworthy until he had outgrown the passions of youth, so his first wife was not crowned

Treatment of the Ætheling Æthelred It is apparent that there was a compromise deal between the opposing parties within the Witan, and, in return for unanimity over the election of King Edward, his younger brother was given a substantial endowment of property and other rights so that he and his mother, Queen Ælfthryth, controlled resources befitting the heir to the

84 Stafford P. ‘The Reign of Æthelred II: a Study in the Limitations on Royal Policy and Action’, in Ethelred the Unready: Papers from the Millenary Conference, ed. D. Hill, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 59, 1978, pp. 15-46 at p. 21. 85 16 September 984, aged 23: Searle W. G. Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles: the Succession of the Bishops and the Pedigrees of the Kings and Nobles, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899, p. 347. 86 See Chapter 3, below. 87 Given the status of the relationship between William the Conqueror’s parents, ‘legitimacy’ was not as important immediately after the Conquest as it became later. For the propaganda value of Edward the Martyr’s status and death see Chapter 6, below. 88 Stubbs Memorials of Saint Dunstan p. 112.

89

Stubbs Memorials of Saint Dunstan pp. 422-4. Eadmer is best known as the friend and biographer of St Anslem, and author of the Historia Novorum. 91 Stubbs, Memorials of Saint Dunstan, pp. xxxii-xxxiv. 92 Stubbs, Memorials of Saint Dunstan, chapter 33, pp. 209-10. 93 Stubbs W. (ed.), Willelmi Malmesbiriensis de Gestis Regum Anglorum, vol. I, Rolls Series, London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1887, c. 159, pp. 17980. 94 Darlington R. R. & P. McGurk (eds.), The Chronicle of John of Worcester, Volume II, The Annals from 450 to 1066, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995, pp. 416-17. 95 See the quotation from the Life of St Oswald, below, for reasons advanced at the time. 96 S. 937, dated about 999. This charter is quoted below. 90

11

The Reign of Æthelred II throne. Some of Æthelred’s charters are particularly valuable to historians because they often contain statements explaining the background events leading to the granting of the charter. One such illustrates the, apparently, cavalier manner with which the Witan dealt with some of the property that had been granted to the Church during Edgar’s reign, as they returned it to secular use during Edward’s reign. In this instance the land was for the use of the Ætheling Æthelred:

brother’s election in the best possible light. The charter also shows us that, in the political settlement at the beginning of Edward’s reign, Æthelred and his mother were able to support a substantial household because he was given control of ‘the lands reserved for kings’ sons’. It also illustrates the cavalier manner in which some former royal lands were taken back from the monastery at Abingdon for Æthelred’s use. After Edward’s death, Æthelred received the use of all royal lands since there were no viable ‘king’s sons’ to be supported. It is apparent that the new regime made no attempt to restore lands taken from Abingdon during Edward’s reign, even though Æthelred’s leading advisor, Bishop Æthelwold, had a particular interest in that monastery. It was, in fact, over twenty years later that a mature King Æthelred granted lands in compensation to the monastery at Abingdon.

I, Æthelred, by his saving grace king of the English, amongst the diverse changes of this fleeting age, remembered how in the time of my boyhood an act was done against me, when my father, King Edgar, going the way of all earthly (things), passed away to the Lord old and full of days; namely that all the leading men of both orders with one accord chose my brother Edward to control and govern the kingdom, and to me they handed over the lands reserved for kings’ sons for my use. Some of which lands, in truth, my father, while he reigned, granted for the redemption of his soul to the omnipotent Christ and his Mother St. Mary, to the monastery which is called Abingdon: that is Bedwyn, with all things belonging to it, Hurstbourne, with all its appurtenances, Burbage and all renders belonging to it. These lands were immediately removed by force, by the decree and order of all the leading men, from the aforesaid holy monastery, and, by the order of these same, placed under my power. Whether they did this thing justly or unjustly, they themselves may know. Then, when my brother left this wretched world and received the reward of everlasting life predestined to him by God, I, by Christ’s consent, received the control both of the royal lands and at the same time those reserved for kings’ sons.97

King Edward’s Troubled Reign It was not only Æthelred and his household that benefited from the restoration to secular use of lands that had been used to endow monastic foundations by King Edgar and other members of the English establishment. The endowment of the monasteries had been on a massive scale and had the effect of diluting the comparative wealth and influence of local leaders in favour of the abbots and their secular sponsors. Because the leading families had vested sponsorship interests in individual monasteries, there was a redistribution of their comparative power at a local level, which tended to set the great families against each other and was the cause of many disputes when the powerful King Edgar died. His son, Edward, was unable to assert sufficient central authority to prevent local unrest as the great families struggled to reassert what they perceived to be their rights as they recovered property that had been lost to monastic foundations. The monastic reaction to these dispossessions can be illustrated by the words of the monk Byrhtferth, writing at the turn of the tenth century, who complained that monasteries, including his own monastery at Ramsey, had suffered depredation of property during Edward’s reign:

In this charter, Æthelred affirms that, despite the feelings of some members of the Witan, the official election of Edward was made unanimously. This charter is dated c. 999, at a time when Æthelred and his ministers were promoting the cult of royal saints and Æthelred’s statement that his brother had ‘received the reward of everlasting life predestined to him by God’ should be read in this context. In such circumstance, we should expect that Æthelred would make no reference to the opposition to Edward’s reign and that he would describe his

So the glorious King (Edgar) died on 8 July; by whose death the state of the whole kingdom was thrown into confusion, the bishops were agitated, the chief men were angry, the monks were shaken with fear, the people terrified; the clerics [canons] were made glad, seeing that their time had come. Abbots with their monks were ejected; clerics with their wives were brought in; … In those days, if the common crowd caught sight of a man of our habit, there was an outcry as if it saw a wolf among the sheep …98

97 S. 937. This is a translation of the text in Kemble J. M. Codex Diplomaticus Aevi Saxonici, vol. 6, London: English Historical Society, 1848, no. 1312, pp 172-6. It is a grant by King Æthelred of lands at Farnborough, Wormleighton, South Cerney, and Perry, to Abingdon, to compensate for the withdrawal of royal lands from them at Hurstbourne, Bedwyn and Burbage. It is dated in Sawyer as ‘A.D. 990 x 1006, perhaps 999’. Comments recorded by Sawyer describe the charter as ‘authentic’. ‘Burbage and all renders belonging to it’ is Whitelock’s translation of ‘Burhbec omnesque sibi adiacentes redditus’. An alternative translation might be ‘Burbage and its environs’. Whitelock’s translation is in EHD, pp. 537-39 (no. 123).

98

Byrhtferth’s Life of St Oswald, translation of the text in Raine J. (ed.), The Historians of the Church of York and its Archbishops, vol. I, Rolls

12

Æthelred the Ætheling: c.968 – 978 The passage has a political slant, attacking those who Byrhtferth deemed to be the enemies of Ramsey, including Abbot Germanus of Winchcombe a former prior of Ramsey, and Ealdorman Ælfhere of Mercia, who, according to Byrhtferth, appropriated enormous revenues at this time. Byrhtferth then goes on to praise the protectors of Ramsey’s interests, Ealdorman Æthelwine of East Anglia, his brother Ælfwold and Ealdorman Byrhtnoth of Essex. The author of this passage is complaining about specific problems at his own monastery and blames those who took back by force property that had been given to it. He ignores the fact that the men he praises were opposed to Edgar’s politicising of the Church and that the removal of some of the monastic endowments at this time was justified by the need to distinguish more clearly between secular authority and the divine mission of the Church; the party of reaction included men who were notable for their religious zeal including saints Dunstan and Oswald, and Ealdorman Æthelwine of East Anglia who was given the byname: Dei Amicus, ‘the friend of God’. It is apparent that there was a general movement to restore an earlier status quo as is evidenced by the reclamation of royal land in the charter quoted above. Although the reform movement was thus brought to a halt, temporarily, King Edward’s supporters, led by Archbishop Dunstan, lacked the energy and political will to impose their authority in the Witan. The result was a period of political uncertainty and disturbances in the land. King Edward was not a sufficiently mature character to impose his own authority in these circumstances and unify the Witan. Our early sources say that he was a young man who enjoyed the trappings of kingship and power and became overbearing to his immediate followers. The writer of the Life of St Oswald contrasts Edward unfavourably with his brother in the following passage, which describes how some leading men would have preferred Æthelred as king, following the death of Edgar. It also describes how Edward ill-treated his immediate entourage:

and other important leaders of the community were opposed to each other. The period of political uncertainty and turmoil during Edward’s reign has usually been termed by historians ‘the period of anti-monastic reaction’, after its most distinguishing feature. This is ironic, since an important motivation for the changes that occurred was religious. Another motivation was greed. Self-interest prevailed amongst the leading members of the government because there was a lack of firm authority at the centre of that government. It is clear that the Witan was authorising a huge increase in expenditure which led to the premium in the coinage being doubled from 32 pence to 64 pence per pound of silver.100 This is significant because it encouraged people to bring silver to the moneyers and more coins became available; however, the average weight of the coinage was decreasing and this threatened to dilute the commuted value of food-rents and taxes. Whilst this might have pleased individual merchants and nobles, the consequent economic uncertainty, coupled with unrest caused by the dissention between noble families, threatened the unity and strength of the kingdom. However, the nature and extent of the reaction must not be overestimated. All parties favoured reform in theory whilst wishing to restrict its extent in areas of their own authority and in the last resort there was a common interest in maintaining the unity of England and the obedience of all its provinces to the West Saxon king. This common interest transcended local ambitions. Since England had only recently been united, the predominantly West Saxon Witan needed to maintain unity if it were to retain control over the whole of England and continue to enjoy the benefits of increasing wealth. King Edward’s character, as described, was an obstacle to firm government. So there was a political motive for some nobles to take matters into their own hands and rid the country of an obstacle to order and unity. It was against this background that we should understand the significance of the murder of King Edward on 10 June 978;101 a murder for which nobody was brought to justice.

For certain of the nobles of this region wanted to choose the elder son of the king, Edward by name, as king; some of the most eminent leaders longed for the younger [i.e. Æthelred] because he appeared to all milder in word and deed. The elder, who (flayed) not only with words but even with dreadful scourges [lashes], in fact inspired not only fear but even terror in everyone, and especially his own people who attended him.99

The murder of the king was, rightly, considered a shocking occurrence but its political impact was benign and he was not the first Anglo-Saxon king to have been murdered. His murder was given added significance many years after his death when it was used for propaganda purposes, firstly to identify him as a saint and later to explain why God was punishing the English nation by allowing Scandinavian invasions. But in 978 his murder paved the way for the accession of King Æthelred II and it was with evident enthusiasm that Edward’s younger

This passage contrasts the younger brother, Æthelred, favourably with King Edward and suggests that King Edward, a young man, was cruel to his immediate entourage and unwilling to accept direction. The passage goes on to describe a period of unrest in which ealdormen

100 Central government finances deteriorated throughout Edward’s reign, such that, at the commencement of his brother Æthelred’s reign, the premium was increased to 80 pennies for each pound weight of silver; see Appendix 3, ‘Fiscal policy and manipulation of the currency’. This was potentially an inflationary increase threatening to devalue the revenues of the King permanently. 101 For the date, see Appendix 1: Chronological Analysis.

Series, London: Longman & Co., 1879, pp. 443-4. There is a longer translation from this ‘Life’ in Whitelock EHD, pp. 839-40. 99 Translation of the text of the Life of St Oswald in Raine, Historians of the Church of York, p. 449.

13

The Reign of Æthelred II brother was elected and consecrated as king. It is apparent that the unrest ceased and firm government was restored after Edward’s death and, were it not for its later propaganda value, it seems doubtful whether Edward’s death would have been much regretted.102 During the period of peace which had been a notable feature of Edgar’s reign, there had been a significant increase in economic prosperity as trade flourished within the enlarged kingdom and trading links with other northern European countries increased. The demographic trend was for an increasing population and, as a result, more land was brought into use and this became a further spur to an increase in economic prosperity. This is one of the reasons why the disputes arising on Edgar’s death were limited and soon brought to an end. The nobles did not want to lose the overall increase in their economic prosperity, which they recognised as being directly related to peace and a wider sphere of influence both within the British Isles and elsewhere. This was a major factor explaining why it was relatively easy to restore discipline and order after King Edward was killed in 978.103 Edward’s murder and the return of strong government must have been a relief to the many people who had a vested interest in maintaining England in its extended form and in maintaining the economic and political power of the West Saxon monarchy.

102 Chapter 6, below, describes how the story of Edward’s murder was developed for propaganda purposes. 103 See Chapter 2, below.

14

2 A Young King: 978 - 991 and recognise the relevance of the continuum that existed between the reigns of Eadwig, Edgar and Æthelred.

A Continuum in Royal Policy It is convenient to place the political, social and economic development of the people who inhabited England in the early Middle Ages into periodic segments delineated by the reigns of individual kings. There is much sense in this, since the king was at the apex of the governing hierarchy and he either instigated policy or policy was instigated in his name and by his authority; but it would be a mistake to do so in an indiscriminate manner. King Eadred’s death in 955 was a political, social and economic watershed, but the developments that followed his death, during the successive reigns of the brothers Eadwig and Edgar were seamless. They both became kings in their teens and, by coincidence, in Eadwig’s reign many of the important offices of state fell into the hands of equally young men of important family. In effect, it was an opportunity for the experienced councillors of the kingdom to take control of affairs of state. These councillors included men whose fame is well known to us, such as St Dunstan and St Æthelwold, but many are just names in the witness lists of royal diplomas and some do not even have that claim to fame. Yet they laid the foundations for a period of peace and increasing prosperity. These developments can be seen in the reigns of Eadwig and Edgar and are the basis of Edgar’s reputation for being one of the best of the Anglo-Saxon kings who merited the by-name ‘the Peaceable’ and whose reign was regarded as a golden age by successive generations. These benign developments increased economic wealth and social cohesion. They also had a centralising effect on the political control of the country. As Edgar grew older his policies were aimed at a further centralisation of political control into his own hands, so he was able to act in an increasingly autocratic manner. Edgar’s unexpected death brought this aggrandisement of royal power to an end temporarily as Edgar’s two young sons succeeded him – for he had no surviving brothers. Following Edgar’s death there was a short period of political unrest after which the dominant influences in the Witan ensured that the reign of King Æthelred, during the years 978 until 991, was a period of political continuum with that of the reigns of his uncle and father.

The Accession of King Æthelred King Edward was killed on 10 June, 978104 and he was succeeded by his brother, Æthelred, who was then about ten years old. King Æthelred was much influenced by his mother and the Biblical Commandment which required that he should ‘honour’ her. Indeed, many years later, Æthelred quoted this Commandment, Honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam, ut sis longaeuus super terram, in a charter in which he granted land for the repose of the souls of his father and mother.105 The authority and influence of women was dependent upon social status in a hierarchical society, just as it was for men. The acknowledged authority of a mother over her child was an important political consideration in an age when life was so uncertain and widowhood was a common occurrence.106 It was to be expected, therefore, that Queen Ælfthryth and her political party, which was led by Bishop Æthelwold, should again dominate the Witan. However, the successful party was careful not to alienate its opponents by pressing ahead with Æthelwold’s reform agenda for some time. Their first task was to organise the consecration ceremony for the new king. The time chosen was at the end of the Easter celebrations 979 when all the most important people could be expected to gather for a crown-wearing ceremony. According to the annals, the place chosen for the consecration was Kingston-upon-Thames, in Surrey.107 The gathering took place over a period of several days and required much organisation. Assembly halls had to be prepared and supplies of food and drink arranged, including ensuring that river and road access was suited to heavy demand. Sites and amenities had to be prepared for the great tents of the nobility and the bishops.108 In addition there was a requirement for living quarters for their retainers and servants as well as facilities for their horses and all the paraphernalia that attended great lords on their travels. This was organised with much success over a period of several months. By then, the new king’s

Æthelred himself was only about ten year’s old when he succeeded to the throne but inevitably he became increasingly influential in government as he grew older. However, it is the political continuum that is of most consequence in this first period of Æthelred’s reign and his council’s successful development of policies initiated during Edgar’s reign went a long way towards creating the fortunate image that Edgar enjoys in the annals and history books. To understand the first period of King Æthelred’s reign it is necessary to remember the roots of these benign economic, social and political developments

104 See Appendix 1: Chronological analysis for the date of Edward’s murder. 105 ‘Honour your father and your mother that your days may be long in the land’ in S.904, dated 1002. 106 Thus, dowager empresses were frequently de facto rulers of Germany and Northern Italy in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries during the minority of their sons. 107 Swanton M. (trans.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, London: J. M. Dent, 1996, p. 122, note 7 and p. 104, note 10. Swanton describes Kingston as ‘an important royal holding, the first bridging-point on the Thames upstream from London Bridge.’ 108 A tent is bequeathed to St Albans in the will of Archbishop Ælfric, who died in 1005: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. XVIII, pp. 52-3, line 21.

15

The Reign of Æthelred II minister had handled outstanding political issues with an adroitness that ensured the provinces rallied around their new king so that he was consecrated with great rejoicing. This was on 4 May 979:

There is one sour note in the annals recording Æthelred’s consecration. Most Europeans of the tenth and eleventh centuries believed that God intervened directly in human affairs and that He would often use a natural phenomenon, such as an eclipse, to signify His feelings about the state of affairs on earth. For that reason such phenomena are sometimes recorded in chronicles under the appropriate annal year. That God should be displeased by the murder of a king would seem natural to the people of the time and note was taken of a strange occurrence:

In this year Æthelred was consecrated as king on the Sunday, (which was) a fortnight after Easter, at Kingston, and there were at his consecration two archbishops and ten suffragan [i.e. diocesan] bishops.109

That same year a bloody cloud was seen frequently in the likeness of fire, and it was observed mostly at midnight, and was formed like manifold columns. When day was about to dawn, it slipped away.113

Although, the Æthelredian Exemplar, in an annal written some thirty-seven years after these events, said that Æthelred was consecrated ‘with great rejoicing’,110 the annal in ASC C, which may come from a more nearly contemporary source, makes no such comment. This is not significant because most annals of the period are strictly factual. What is clear from the annal is that the consecration was a major celebration, akin to King Edgar’s ‘imperial’ consecration at Bath some six years earlier. It took place at the end of the Easter festival and the annal, presumably inspired by a Churchman, emphasises the important function of the two archbishops and their suffragan bishops. An impression of the religious nature of the ceremony may be gained from the king’s sacred promise at his consecration. This pledge was given in a manuscript to the young king by Archbishop Dunstan. The king placed the manuscript on the alter, presumably after it was read to the assembled people:

This annal must have been copied from ASC C’s exemplar but when it was added to the exemplar is not known, although it must have been after the creation of the Æthelredian Exemplar in 1016-17. It echoes an earlier annal which foretold the Scandinavian invasions of the ninth century and it seems likely that this passage was added in the knowledge of the Scandinavian invasions which were to blight the final decade of King Æthelred’s reign. John of Worcester takes up the reference from ASC C and describes ‘a cloud, now bloody, now fiery’, which appeared ‘in the middle of the night throughout England’.114 There is a similar annal in the Chronicle of Sigebert of Gembloux, but, although Sigebert’s annals were available in England when John was writing, it is unlikely that they were John’s source.115 The annals of Waverley, which do make use of Sigebert’s annals, state: ‘fiery flashes [connotation of flashing weapons of a band of warriors intended] were seen throughout the night of 28 October’, thus indicating that the phenomenon occurred once only.116 It is possible that ASC C and, therefore, John of Worcester are misreporting a single occurrence that was seen on the Continent. If so, the facts that we should focus on is that Æthelred was consecrated with much rejoicing in a great ceremony at the end of the Easter festival and that there were no substantive doubts about the efficacy of the government of England during the early years of his reign. It was this tradition that led John of Worcester to write, about 150 years after the event:

In the name of the Holy Trinity I promise three things to the Christian people and my subjects: first, that God’s church and all Christian people of my dominions hold true peace; the second is that I forbid robbery and all unrighteous things to all orders; the third, that I promise and enjoin in all dooms justice and mercy, that the gracious and merciful God of his everlasting mercy may forgive us all, who liveth and reigneth.111 The influence of the Church in political matters had been deliberately fostered by tenth century monarchs, nobody more enthusiastically than Æthelred’s father, King Edgar. There had been parallel developments in Germany, where there was a marked contrast between the late tenth century celebrations of monarchy and the description we have of the early tenth-century secular acclamation of Henry the Fowler.112

113

ASC C s.a. 979. Darlington & McGurk, John of Worcester, pp. 430-1. The so-called ‘Chronicle of John of Worcester’, more correctly ‘Chronicle of Chronicles’, was sponsored by Bishop Wulfstan of Worcester and work commenced on it at the end of the eleventh century. The main manuscript ends with the annal for 1140. Unusually, we know the names of two of the scribes – Florence and John. The modern convention is to ascribe the whole work to John of Worcester; it used to be ascribed to Florence of Worcester. The modern convention is followed in this book. 115 Lourd, Annales Monastici vol. II, pp. xxxi-xxxii and p. 168. 116 ignae acies visae sunt in caelo per totam noctem. v. Kal. Novembris. Ibid. p. 168. The phenomenon is recorded s.a. 979 and the editor of the annals has referenced the quotation to ‘Sigebert col. 194’. Edward’s murder and Æthelred’s succession are recorded s.a. 978 and there is no reference to Æthelred’s consecration. 114

109 ASC C s.a. 979. For the date of consecration see Appendix 1, Chronological analysis. 110 ASC DE s.a. 979. 111 Stubbs, Memorials of Saint Dunstan, p. 355. Stubbs’ translation of the Old English. 112 Compare the election of Henry the Fowler, in 918, where Henry refused the archbishop of Mainz’s offer to anoint him king, with the coronation ceremony of his son, Otto the Great, in 936 with its secular and religious aspects: Waitz, Widukind, Bk I, c. 25, and Bk II, c. 1. See also Davis, ‘The Saxon Empire’, pp. 210-16 in Davis R. H. C. ‘The Saxon Empire’, in A History of Medieval Europe from Constantine to Saint Louis, London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1957.

16

A Young King: 978 - 991 His brother Æthelred, the illustrious atheling, elegant in his manners, handsome in visage, glorious in appearance, was consecrated to the most exalted position in the kingdom on Sunday, 14 April, in the sixth indiction,117 after the Easter feast by the blessed Archbishops Dunstan and Oswald and by ten bishops at Kingston.118

sources of information, such as charters, that help to explain what was happening during this period. Much valuable information can be gleaned from royal charters and our knowledge of the reign of King Æthelred has been much enhanced by Professor Keynes’ careful analysis of his charters or the copies of his charters in monastic cartularies.123 Of course, only a limited selection of charters are extant and they may not be entirely representative since the surviving documents tend to be those kept by the Church and, inevitably, this means that they are charters concerning land and rights in which the Church had an interest. Also, some of the extant charters contain suspicious features, which suggest they were created in a later age to justify the possession of land for which no manuscript authority then existed. Nevertheless the witness lists of the extant charters are particularly informative, and have been analysed to show that there was a continuity and cohesion in the group of nobles and ministers who surrounded the king.124 The charters are witnessed by ealdormen, bishops, abbots and other ministers. This, and the homiletic preamble, which many charters contain, indicates that charters were read out and formally witnessed at the great state gatherings, such as Easter, when there was much religious ceremony and, probably, a formal crown-wearing by King Æthelred. At other times of the year many of these important officials would have been otherwise engaged in the provinces, dioceses, or monasteries for which they were responsible. The witness lists also include the names of ‘ministers’ some of whom must have formed an executive committee serving and conducting the royal government under the direction of the Queen and Bishop Æthelwold. In this context, Winchester was a significant bishopric for Æthelwold to hold since the city was at the heart of West Saxon royal government and this made it easier for the bishop to conduct the dual roles of chief minister and diocesan bishop. Some of the ministers who witnessed the charters were important provincial leaders who were attending the king’s court but who spent much of their time dealing with their own and the king’s

This folk memory of Æthelred, which is echoed briefly in the writings of William of Malmesbury,119 probably describes Æthelred the mature king rather than the tenyear-old boy who was consecrated in 979. Ascendancy of Queen Ælfthryth and Bishop Æthelwold Although the monastic reform party regained power with the accession of King Æthelred, its leaders appear to have embarked on a policy of consolidation. As might be expected, our sources for this period do not complain of further alienation of monastic land to secular use but neither does there appear to have been a drive to return land, alienated during Edward’s reign, back to Church control. So, although the accession of the young Æthelred restored his mother and her supporters to political power, they were constrained in the use of that power by the need to maintain political unity. This did not prevent the nobility from continuing to endow the monasteries that enjoyed their patronage, and, although the great days for the enhancement of major monastic foundations seemed to have passed,120 there were still instances of the endowment of monasteries; a significant instance being the foundation of Tavistock Abbey in 981 by the king’s uncle, Ordwulf.121 Except for recording the translation of King Edward’s body, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle provides little information until near the end of this period other than to record the deaths of important people and successions to office.122 It is fortunate, therefore, that there are other

bishopric’; in 981 ‘Womer, abbot of Ghent, died’; in 982 ‘two ealdormen died, Æthelmær of Hampshire and Edwin of Sussex, and Æthelmær’s body is buried in the New Minster at Winchester and Edwin’s in the monastery of Abingdon. That same year two abbesses in Dorset died, Herelufu of Shaftesbury and Wulfwyn of Wareham’. ASC C s.aa. 980-2, Whitelock’s translation. One notable feature of these annals is their interest in Abingdon and New Minster, Winchester. ASC C is an Abingdon manuscript and its abbot, Æthelwold, had become bishop of Winchester. In this context the mention of Womer of Ghent is not surprising; he had visited England and been a member of Æthelwold’s familia at Winchester. He had some influence on Æthelwold in the formulation of the Regularis Concordia. See Lapidge in Yorke, Bishop Æthelwold, pp. 98-9 and note 67. ASC C, in a late addition to its exemplar, adds that Pope Benedict died in 983. There were late additions to the exemplars of ASC C and E recording that Edwin was consecrated as Abbot of the monastery of Abingdon between September and December 984. ASC C s.a. 985, supported by ASC E s.a. 984. ASC E maintained a midwinter or 1 January caput anni until 991; ASC C, following the Æthelredian Exemplar, was using an Indiction (September) caput anni; hence, the two annals are indicating a date between September and December 984. 123 Keynes Diplomas. 124 Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 154-62. In addition to continuity, Keynes distinguishes changes in the groups of ministri who witnessed charters, suggesting that the king favoured different factions periodically.

117

The date given for the consecration by John is his deduction based on a misunderstanding of the ASC annal year. See Appendix I, Chronological Analysis. 118 Translation taken from Darlington & McGurk, John of Worcester, pp. 430-1. 119 Stevenson J. (trans.), William of Malmesbury: The Kings before the Norman Conquest, Felinfach: Llanerch Publishers, 1987 (facsimile reprint from The Church Historians of England), Bk I, c. 165: ‘To me indeed, deeply reflecting upon the subject, it seems wonderful how a man, who, as we have been taught to suppose, was neither very foolish, nor excessively cowardly, should pass his life in the wretched endurance of so many calamities.’ Here, William, who denigrates the king excessively, expresses surprise at the folk tradition, which he had learned, presumably, in his youth. 120 In fact, the greatest monastic foundation during Æthelred’s reign was yet to come when Wulfric Spott endowed Burton Abbey, but this did not take place until 1004. See Chapter 3, below. 121 Son of Ealdorman Ordgar of Devon and brother of Æthelred’s mother, Queen Ælfthryth. 122 In annals of unknown provenance in ASC C, which appear to be using either a midwinter or 1 January caput anni, we are informed that: ‘Abbot Æthelgar was consecrated bishop for the see of Selsey on 2 May 980’; in 981‘Ælfstan, bishop of Wiltshire, died, and his body is buried in the monastery of Abingdon, and Wulfgar then succeeded to the

17

The Reign of Æthelred II business in the provinces. During Edgar’s reign and for most of Æthelred’s reign, ministers witnessed charters using the Latin designation minister. This reflects the entirely peaceful nature of the court gatherings. It had not always been so and before 955 the ministers witnessing King Eadred’s charters sometimes witnessed with the designation miles.125 In other words they had appeared at court in arms and with their retinues prepared to support their king on one of his campaigns. However, the usage is rare during the reigns of King Edgar and King Æthelred.

king’s body’, which was written in 1016, many years after his sanctity had been established by the performance of miracles at his tomb.130 This important ceremony came towards the end of Ealdorman Ælfhere’s long tenure of office. He died in 983,131 and was succeeded as Ealdorman of Mercia by his relative, Ælfric.132 Maintaining Peace and Order The years until 991 witnessed a period of peace in the provinces ruled directly by King Æthelred. There were, of course, disturbances of that peace within the communities inhabiting those provinces and there were some incursions by raiders, but the comparison with the situation in western continental Europe and Ireland was exceedingly favourable.133

As Keynes has demonstrated, precedence in the lists of ealdormen witnessing royal charters during this period was strictly in order of seniority; a seniority which was decided by length of time in office.126 Ealdorman Ælfhere of Mercia was the most senior ealdorman at the commencement of Æthelred’s reign127 and in 980 he represented the king at an important ceremony. King Edward’s body had been buried at the nunnery at Wareham after he had been murdered. His killers had escaped punishment and the new king’s Witan clearly felt that there was a need to reassert royal authority and the reverence that should be accorded to a consecrated monarch. In 980 the murdered king’s body was translated with great ceremony to the nunnery at Shaftesbury, where it was buried in the churchyard.128 A ceremony of translation was often accorded to the remains of a saint and so, by this act, the Witan was reasserting the sanctity of the office of king. King Æthelred was about twelve years old at the time of the ceremony and the Queen and the Witan may have considered that it was inappropriate for him to shoulder an onerous ceremonial responsibility; hence, as senior ealdorman, it was Ealdorman Ælfhere of Mercia who led the ceremony:

Like his father, King Æthelred’s charter titles claimed an imperial suzerainty over the whole of the British Isles. In making their claim to empire Edgar and Æthelred often used the word ‘basileus’, thus equating themselves with the rulers of the Eastern Roman Empire and declaring equality with their Saxon cousins who had been accorded an imperial title in Rome. With a claim to imperial authority came responsibilities and, during the reigns of both Edgar and Æthelred, there is evidence that the Witan made provision for maintaining order in those parts of the British Isles inhabited by ‘Britons’. By ‘Britons’ they meant British peoples other than the Anglo-Saxons and Danes who owed them a direct allegiance. It was this claim to suzerainty and the need to enforce order and respect for his authority that drew King Edgar to take a great force up the Irish Sea to Chester in 972 when he accepted the submission of British kings who promised to be his allies on sea and on land. As will be seen, King Æthelred made a similar expedition with a great force in the year 1000.134 However, for the most part relations with the British kings were a matter for the king’s ealdormen and bishops to deal with at a local level.

Here, in this year Ealdorman Ælfhere brought the holy king’s body (which was) at Wareham and conveyed it with great honour to Shaftesbury.129

Many different peoples shared access to the Irish Sea and the Severn Estuary. There was much trading activity and inevitably traders took to raiding activities on occasion. Sometimes casual raiding was replaced by a more deliberate approach to such activities by Viking bands. In this context ‘Viking’ could mean people of any race or, possibly, a band of men of mixed race. The existence of Viking bands posed a threat to British kings, as did the activities of some of their own subjects. At such times the alliance of their interests with the powerful king of the Anglo-Saxons could be useful to them, especially if Anglo-Saxon ealdormen and bishops could bring them

Although the ceremony was intended to honour the dead king and it is possible that the Witan was already contemplating the possibility of sainthood, too much significance should not be attached to the phrase ‘the holy 125

Charters witnessed by ‘miles’ in King Eadred’s reign include: S.519, S.531, S.544. King Eadred also made grants of land to men who are described as miles; examples being Ulfcetel miles (S.549), Wulfric miles (S.550), Uhtred miles et dux (S.548), Wulfhelm miles (S.557), Ælfsige miles (S.556). King Eadwig’s charters were occasionally witnessed by miles including S.609 in 956, and S.1291, S.647, S.642 in 957. King Edgar’s charters thus witnessed are very rare and include S.685 in 960, [In 962, Wulfstan’s charter is confirmed by the king and witnesses included miles.], and S.746 in 966. King Æthelred’s charter, S.926, in 1012 is witnessed by miles and this is very significant since, by indicating that his ministers were bearing arms, it is evidence that a large English army was called out that year, though it is not mentioned in the Æthelredian Exemplar. 126 Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 257-8. This order of precedence was not strictly adhered to in the reigns of Eadwig and Edgar; nor was it adhered to later in Æthelred’s reign, with the advent of Ealdorman Eadric Streona. 127 King Eadwig had appointed him ealdorman in 956. See Chapter One. 128 For the year, see Appendix 1: Chronological analysis. 129 ASC D E s.a. 980.

130

Evidence of sainthood was not forthcoming until 984, according to the Life of St Oswald, our earliest source for this matter. See Chapter 3. 131 ASC D s.a. 983, supported by ASC ACE. 132 ASC D s.a. 983, supported by ASC CE. John of Worcester says that Ælfric was the son of Ealdorman Ælfhere, Darlington & McGurk, John of Worcester, pp. 434-5, but he is probably wrong. Ælfric was the brother-in-law of Ealdorman Ælfhere; see Locherbie-Cameron, ‘The Men Named in the Poem’ in The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991, pp. 238-49, at p. 241. 133 Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, p. 16 and note 18 pp. 16-17. 134 Chapter 3.

18

A Young King: 978 - 991 for a campaign during the year 988.137 Whether the thegn Goda was killed during this campaign or whether the king summoned his host to avenge his death is not now known. It is known that the Irish Sea coasts were troubled by a particularly ferocious band of Vikings at this time, since the Welsh annals inform us of a raid on Anglesey in which 2,000 captives were taken, many of whom were later redeemed by Maredudd ab Owain ap Hywel Dda at a penny per head.138 The English campaign is likely to have been directed against enemy bases along the Severn Estuary and Southern Wales and Æthelred must have led this campaign himself. Since the English fyrd had been summoned and the king’s councillors had appeared at court in arms, witnessing a royal charter as miles, it is inconceivable that an English king, about twenty years of age, should stay behind when his army set off on campaign; the more so since this was a king who was destined to gain the respect and loyal support of some of the most famous Scandinavian warriors of the Second Viking Age.139

assistance. There is no contemporary evidence of how this support was provided but the circumstances are not unique in the history of the Middle Ages and it is possible to look for parallels elsewhere. If so, the likely scenario is an expedition aimed at maintaining a presence in a British territory for several weeks to force submission on disturbers of the peace and opponents of the local king. Such expeditions would also have had a social focus for their activities, including hunting and feasting in which, no doubt, the local king and his retainers would play a full part. Sometimes Viking raiding activities spilled over into lands inhabited by Anglo-Saxons in regions east of Wales, the south coast of the Severn Estuary and the Channel coast of England and the raiders might well have a base in provinces ruled by British kings who could not or would not deal with them. Their bases could then attract a retaliatory raid by the Anglo-Saxons. In effect, the Anglo-Saxons used harrying as a judicial punishment against raiders and those who harboured raiders. This harrying did not warrant mention in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle because it was of peripheral importance and local officials, such as the ealdormen, led the raiding forces. However, some of these Anglo-Saxon raids were significant enough to be recorded in the Welsh annals. Although retaliatory raids did not warrant a mention, a few of the Viking raids against lands inhabited by the Anglo-Saxons were of sufficient significance to have been recorded in versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

There is also information about raids on England during this period in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle version C. Its exemplar received annals for the years 978 to 991 from the Æthelredian Exemplar, probably early in 1017. Subsequently, some of the early annals were amended and further information was added. The amended version was then copied into the extant version of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle version C. We do not know the provenance of the additional information and why it was unavailable to the compilers of the Æthelredian Exemplar. The additional information informs us of the attack on Southampton in 980 and that most of its citizens were killed or taken into captivity, but it omits to say how many ships were involved in the attack. It goes on to say that, in 981, ‘St Petroc’s monastery was sacked’ and ‘great damage was done everywhere by the coast both in Devon and also in Cornwall’. In 982 ‘three ships of vikings arrived in Dorset and ravaged in Portland’. The number of ships involved in the attack on Portland provides an indication of the number of Vikings. Assuming that they left sufficient men to protect their ships, as they were bound to do, the force that ravaged Portland would number approximately 100 men. That the impact of such a force could have been considered significant is a reminder that the British Isles were sparsely populated in the tenth century.

The most nearly contemporary annals for this period, 978 to 991, are in version A of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. These annals are sparse and focus attention on the West Saxon heartland around Winchester. They evidence no disturbances or incursions. The Æthelredian Exemplar informs us that raiders, who came in ‘seven ships’, ravaged Southampton in the autumn of the year 980.135 It also informs us that Watchet, on the Somerset coast in the Severn Estuary, was ravaged in the autumn of the year 987. In 988, ‘Goda, the Devonshire thegn, was killed, and many fell with him’. This information follows immediately after the annal record of the attack on Watchet, which is near the Devonshire border, and it is often supposed that Goda and his men died in a battle with the Watchet raiders.136 These annals in the Æthelredian Exemplar were written in 1016/17; their provenance is unknown, though it may have been a contemporary record. The compiler of the Æthelredian Exemplar provides a biased account of events, unfavourable to Æthelred, and, as will be seen in Chapter 6, sometimes achieves his desired effect by suppressing relevant information that may have been expected to feature in his sources. However, there is charter evidence that King Æthelred summoned his army

Although we do not know the provenance of these accounts in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle version C and in 137 S.872 dated between midwinter 987 and September 988, in which the witnesses are described as ‘miles’ rather than ‘minister’. Interestingly, Æthelred also granted land to ‘Æthelmær the king’s miles’ in 988: S.871. 138 St David’s was also raided in 988. See Chitty M. The Monks on Ynys Enlli, Part I, c.500 AD to 1252 AD, Aberdaron: 1992, pp. 351-2. She bases some of her information on Lloyd E. J. A History of Wales from the Earliest Times to the Edwardian Conquest, London: 1912. See also, Williams Ab Ithel J. (ed.), Brut Y Tywysogion; or The Chronicle of the Princes, Rolls Series, London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1860, pp. 28-31. 139 Including Olaf Tryggvason, Olaf Haraldsson (St Olaf) and Thorkell the Tall: see later chapters of this book.

135

ASC D E s.a. 981. Our twelfth century sources, such as John of Worcester, make this assumption but it is unlikely that they had the benefit of being able to juxtapose the annals in ASC E and ASC D as we can. The use of different caput anni in ASC D and E at this time allows us to be more accurate in our dating. 136

19

The Reign of Æthelred II could have trained to become a priest, married and taken control of some important Church Office, possibly a bishopric since the pool of properly educated men of appropriate family was relatively small. However, the monastic revival was under way and Oswald decided upon a celibate life. At his uncle’s instigation he was sent to the monastery at Fleury on the River Loire in France to learn about monasticism and the rule of St Benedict in one of the major centres of the reform movement. This was a formative experience and he, together with St Dunstan and St Æthelwold, is recognised as being a leader of the monastic reform movement in England. He returned to England after Archbishop Oda’s death and it was as a monk, and therefore celibate, that he was advanced to the important bishopric of Worcester by King Edgar, in 962, on the advice of St Dunstan. At that time it was still unusual to find a monk translated from the contemplative and closed life of the monastery into a diocesan office that required a heavy involvement in secular affairs including the administration of justice. At Worcester, St Oswald found that his cathedral chapter was made up of canons, many of whom were married priests. Unlike St Æthelwold he did not make sweeping changes to the cathedral chapter, though he did introduce monks as and when he had the opportunity.

the Æthelredian Exemplar, the English coast was subject to a number of hit and run raids often by the crews of single ships. There were Scandinavians, Celts and other nationalities trading and raiding in the Irish Sea and Severn Estuary at this time and both the south shore of the Severn Estuary and the south coast of England were tempting targets. In addition to the above annals, there is circumstantial evidence of these raiding activities in Scandinavian sagas and contemporary Anglo-Saxon records which sometimes hint at a reaction to such raids. This raises the question of how King Æthelred’s Witan maintained order and extended the authority of the king’s government amongst the peoples who owed a direct allegiance to Æthelred and, in particular, how they were enabled to protect the people from coastal raiders, and, if need be, assert Æthelred’s authority in the provinces ruled by local kings. At the centre of government, Bishop Æthelwold’s monastic policy was geared to secure secular objectives including increased control over the Danelaw in particular and peripheral regions subject to Æthelred in general. Under Bishop Æthelwold’s guidance, in Edgar’s reign as well as in Æthelred’s reign, it had become government policy to encourage the endowment of monastic foundations and to involve the abbots of those foundations in the government of the country. Charter witness lists evidence their attendance at the royal court. It also became government policy to advance celibate abbots to bishoprics, rather than promoting married clerics. Thus the wealth of the Church was placed in the hands of an abbot or a bishop who was himself a minister of the king with local responsibility for maintaining the peace and administering justice. The king’s closest advisers controlled these ministers, who were usually celibate monks, by a system of promotion from monastery to bishopric and via translations to other bishoprics or archbishoprics. Local magnates were encouraged to endow monastic and church foundations, as it was from members of their families that the king chose the abbots and bishops. This meant that in regions, such as the Danelaw, where the king did not inherit great tracts of ‘royal’ land he could use vast endowments to the Church, which he had himself encouraged, to fund the ministers whom he had promoted to office so that they could help to administer the regions and enforce the wishes of a centralising government.

St Oswald’s own charters, as bishop of Worcester, show that he was not only required to assist the king in his council but he was expected to play a major role in the government of his province; a role which was later extended, in 972, to include the north of England when Oswald was created archbishop of York in addition to his bishopric of Worcester. It is extremely significant, therefore, that Oswald was allowed to maintain his bishopric of Worcester when he became archbishop. In effect, Oswald and his enormous household of retainers were given additional responsibilities in the north, for which the local facilities were insufficient. We are fortunate in having a series of charters issued by St Oswald, which provide an insight into the workings of a great early medieval household. These charters show how the endowments given to the Church benefited the process of government so that the central government could ensure that its control over the provinces was maintained and that law and order were maintained and taxes gathered. The witnesses to Bishop Oswald’s leases are members of the cathedral chapter at Worcester and the charters relate to the property of the Church of Worcester. There may have been a similar series of charters relating to York, but, if so, they are not extant. In any event, the diocese of York was so poor that the resources of Worcester were needed to help support the establishment that Oswald needed there.

St Oswald The career of St Oswald, bishop of Worcester and archbishop of York, who died in 992, exemplifies the major features of government policy, which had been inherited from the reign of King Edgar.

The charters reveal the developing relationship between St Oswald, as bishop of Worcester, and the king and his council. The charters are for the most part granting leases of church land. In the early years it is clear that Oswald was responsible to the ealdorman of Mercia who was the king’s local representative. So, Bishop Oswald grants leases of church land and is careful to acknowledge in his

Oswald himself was the nephew of Archbishop Oda of Canterbury and so was a member of a family that was very high in the social hierarchy. His connection with Oda is a reminder that his family originated from the north and was, in part, of Danish extraction. As a young man, Oswald was destined for the Church. As such he

20

A Young King: 978 - 991 charters that he does so with the agreement of the community of the Church of Worcester and acting under the authority of the ealdorman and the king.140 When Ealdorman Ælfhere of Mercia died he was succeeded by his relative, Ealdorman Ælfric, who was driven into exile, in 985. There was no replacement as ealdorman of Mercia and so Bishop Oswald himself became the king’s direct representative for part of Mercia, fulfilling some of the obligations of the missing ealdorman. At this point there is no further acknowledgement in the charters of superior hierarchical authority, even the king.141 This omission should, of course, be taken as an indication that he is the king’s representative, rather than that he is ignoring the king.

that Oswald was providing his advisors and military leaders with lands on which to sustain themselves and their own followers. Oswald was also providing similar sustenance for his mass priest and for the architect / builder whom he employed for the repairs, improvements and new buildings for the material fabric of the Church. Oswald’s ministers, some of whom were members of his family, were important nobles in their own right and may have owned property. However, the lands leased to them were of substantial value and were in themselves sufficient to support the establishments that were needed for them to fulfil their obligations to Oswald and, through Oswald, to the king. The leases were created in such a way that these nobles could pass them on to a son or other member of the family, but eventually they would fall back into the possession of the Church.

Most of the Worcester charters are leases, usually for three lives, given to Oswald’s ministers and to members of his family. Because some men received several leases, we can see that the word minister is interchangeable with thegn and miles, an alternative designation is ‘fidelis’142 The inclusion of the military term ‘miles’ to describe his followers makes it apparent that Bishop Oswald expected them to meet him from time to time prepared for a military expedition. So these ‘servants’ of St Oswald fulfilled several functions, being his advisors and the leaders of his militia. In this context it should be observed that the see of Worcester had the Welsh marches to the west and the Severn Estuary to the southwest, so its people may have been subjected to attacks by raiders, which were not significant enough to warrant mention in the chronicles of the time.143 It is clear from the charters

Oswald became bishop in 962 and died in 992, so he lived during a period of comparative peace during which the king’s establishment was not on a war footing.144 It is possible that he led his miles on military expeditions himself and, since there was peace in England in this period, the military expeditions directed by Bishop Oswald can only have been aimed at surrounding regions. So here we have evidence of retaliation for raids as well as evidence that Bishop Oswald was expected to demonstrate Anglo-Saxon power to convince the rulers and peoples of neighbouring regions that they should maintain the peace. It is also likely that there were demonstrations of Anglo-Saxon power aimed at supporting local rulers against opposition or even invasion.

140 Oswald became bishop in 962 so there are many leases acknowledging the authority of King Edgar and Ealdorman Ælfhere. Then there are several charters acknowledging the authority of King Edward (the Martyr) and Ealdorman Ælfhere. After Edward’s death, there are charters acknowledging the authority of King Æthelred and Ealdorman Ælfhere and the words used are particularly fulsome as if Bishop Oswald was especially anxious to emphasis the legitimacy of the new king. The following is an example: nec ne Æðelredo allubescente ac fauente per omniparentis nutum totius Albionis basileo, Ælfereque Merciorum comite consentiente: ego Oswaldus … … … cum consultu atque licentia uenerabilis Wiogornensium familiae After Ealdorman Ælfhere’s death, he is replaced by his relative, Ælfric, and we see the following: nec ne Æðelredo allubescente ac fauente per omniparentis nutum totius Albionis basileo, Ælfrico Merciorum comite consentiente: ego Oswaldus … … … cum consultu atque permissione uenerabilis Weogernensium familiae 141 So now we see the simple statement: ego Osuualdus … … … cum consulto atque permissione uenerabilis Wiogornensium familiae, 142 King Eadwig’s charters show that miles and minister are interchangeable because the same men appear in several charters; occasionally they are given the designation miles, but more often they are given the designation minister. Oswald’s charters sometimes refer to the same man in different sections of the charter as minister and thegn. 143 The geographical situation of the diocese of Worcester may be seen in Hill, Atlas, maps 240 and 241. It will be seen that the dioceses of Hereford to the west and Wells to the south of Worcester would have been more directly affected by raiding activity and no doubt their bishops had an equal responsibility for maintaining law and order. Attention is focused here upon St Oswald and his diocese of Worcester because much of our extant information, both contemporary and eleventh and twelfth century, is sourced on Worcester and this may give it the appearance of enhanced importance.

A Power Struggle in the King’s Council Although there was a common interest in maintaining unity and West Saxon hegemony in Britain, there was still disagreement within the Witan about the manner in which that hegemony was being maintained or extended. There was a further backlash against what might be termed ‘the pro-monastic policy’ when Bishop Æthelwold, its leading proponent, died in 984: Here (in this year) departed [died] the benevolent Bishop Æthelwold, and the consecration of the succeeding bishop Ælfheah – he whose other name was called Godwine – was on 19 October, and he 144 It is usual to consider that the last king of England to maintain his establishment on a war footing frequently was King Eadred, who died in 955. The witness lists of his charters show that the same men could be designated as ‘ministers’ or as ‘miles’ and the interchange of these titles indicates that the king’s council was summoned with the intention of proceeding on a military expedition from time to time. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle provides little contemporary information about King Edgar, and the early eleventh century version of the Chronicle, the Æthelredian Exemplar, is at pains to emphasis that Edgar’s reign was a period of profound peace. Nevertheless, Edgar’s ministers are occasionally designated as ‘miles’ in royal charters so it is likely that he went on military expeditions. No doubt one such expedition resulted in the harrying of Thanet in 969, and he was accompanied by a considerable force when he went to Chester in the penultimate year of his reign. For the text of the Anglo-Saxon Charters see Birch, Cartularium Saxonicum and Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus Aevi Saxonici, vols. 1 to 6.

21

The Reign of Æthelred II Æthelred.149 Ælfwine was befriended by Ealdorman Byrhtnoth and died with him at the battle of Maldon.150 The confiscation of Ælfric’s lands was politically significant. It gave King Æthelred direct control over Mercian property that he could then use to maintain reeves and others who would be responsible to him with a greater degree of subordination than the Mercian ealdorman. It seems that the king was prepared to exercise the greater degree of personal authority that he had acquired and was eager to choose his own close advisers.

occupied the bishop’s throne in Winchester on the festival of the two apostles, Simon and Jude.145 Support for St Æthelwold in the Witan had been weakened by the death of Ealdorman Ælfhere of Mercia in 983 and it is probably significant that his relative, Ælfric, who succeeded him as ealdorman of Mercia was driven into exile in 985. The Mercian ealdormanry was extremely rich in land and politically powerful. From references to it in charters and chronicles it is possible to construct a family tree of some of its members:

It is apparent that, following the death of Bishop Æthelwold, Queen Ælfthryth lost much of her political influence for a time and she ceased to feature in the witness lists of royal diplomas from the time of the bishop’s death until 993.151

3. The Mercian Ealdormanry Ealdorman Ealhhelm of Mercia _____________|___________ | | Eadflæd = Ealdorman Ælfhere

Between 984 and 991 there was a change in political direction with the king’s active acquiescence. King Æthelred would have been about sixteen,152 when Bishop Æthelwold died, quite old enough to assert himself and to have fallen under the influence of a party that was opposed to the policies pursued by Æthelwold and Ælfthryth, as the diplomatic evidence, analysed by Keynes, suggests.153 Archbishop Dunstan played a leading part in bringing King Edward to the throne in 978, an action which initiated the earlier period of reaction against monastic endowments and the politicising of the abbots. He was still in office in 984 so it is possible that the party of reaction had a venerable figurehead and that the young king could have felt quite at ease in dismissing the advice of his mother and reacting against some of the more extreme measures pursued by his former chief minister, St Æthelwold. Dunstan’s views on the duties of kingship may be summarised in the following extract from writings associated with him:

NN = Ealdorman Ælfric ______|_________ | | Ælfgar Ælfwine

Ælfhere had been ealdorman of Mercia for many years and was the leading ealdorman in the Witan during the early years of Æthelred’s reign until he died in 983. His brother-in-law, Ealdorman Ælfric, succeeded him as ealdorman of Mercia. Very soon after this, Ælfric ‘forcibly withdrew’ estates at Farnborough, Wormleighton and Cerney from his sister-in-law, Ælfhere’s widow.146 He was allowed to treat these estates as his rightful possessions, so there may have been some legal justification for his action.147 However, he committed some unspecified crime and in 985 was banished from the country after being found guilty of high treason by the king’s council assembled at Cirencester.148 This was a great blow to the ealdorman’s family because not only was Ælfric banished but also all his estates were forfeited to the king. King Æthelred allowed the widow, Eadflæd, to have possession of the estates that Ælfric had taken from her, but these were returned to the king’s control after her death. Ælfric’s sons, Ælfgar and Ælfwine, remained in England and tried to retrieve the family’s fortunes. Ælfgar, in particular, appears to have become a close friend of King

The duty of a hallowed king is that he judge no man unrighteously, and that he defend and protect widows and orphans and strangers, that he forbid thefts, and correct unrighteous intercourse, and annul and altogether forbid incestuous alliances; extirpate witches and enchanters, drive out of the land kin-slayers and perjurers, feed the needy with alms, and have old and wise and sober men for counsellors, and set righteous men for stewards, for whatsoever they do unrighteously by his fault, he must

145

ASC A s.a. 984, supported by ASC CDE. The festival of SS. Simon and Jude is on 28 October. ASC C says that Bishop Æthelwold died on 1 August. 146 That Eadflæd was Ælfhere’s widow is a deduction based upon charter evidence that the properties seized from a widow, by Ealdorman Ælfric Cild, had belonged to Ælfhere. See also, Whitelock EHD, p. 538, Robertson A. J. (ed. and trans.), Anglo-Saxon Charters, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939, p. 370 and Locherbie-Cameron, ‘The Men Named in the Poem’, p. 241. 147 Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 703 (S.896) dated A.D. 999, indiction 12 (between midwinter 998 and September 999), some 16 years after the event, is full of invective against the banished ealdorman and claims that he had taken the property at Cerney unjustly: ‘quidam comes uocitamine Ælfric a quadam matrona Eatflæd (sic) nomine diripuit, et sibi in propriam haereditatem usurpauit.’ However, in context, it is possible that there is some exaggeration in the wording of this paragraph. 148 S.896, S.937. ASC CDE s.a. 985.

149

He eventually fell out of favour, committed an unspecified crime and was blinded in 993: ASC CDE, s.a. 150 See this chapter, below. 151 Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 176-7 and 181-2. The year 993 is not a definitive date for the reinstatement of the Queen since we lack extant diplomas for the years 991 and 992. 152 He was born about 968, see Appendix 1: Chronological Analysis. 153 Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 176-7 and 181-2.

22

A Young King: 978 - 991 ministers, Æthelsige.160 However, Æthelred was appropriating lands from other churches at this time, which he later restored,161 so there is reason to be cautious in evaluating the events at Rochester. Twelfth century writers provide explanations that are hostile to the king but their authority on this subject is doubtful.162 The annal for 986 goes on to say that this was the year in which ‘the great murrain first occurred in England’. This ‘murrain’ was an infectious disease in cattle and was very significant to a society that was heavily reliant upon agriculture and animal husbandry. The inclusion of this notice, in the context of tenth and early eleventh century beliefs, may be intended to suggest that God was expressing disapproval of the Witan’s actions at this time, actions that included the attack on the diocese of Rochester. The juxtaposition of these events may simply be coincidence; it is not possible to judge because our source for the 986 annals is the biased Æthelredian Exemplar, compiled in 1016/17, and its own sources for the events of the year 986 are not extant.

render account of it all in the judgement day.154 St Dunstan died in 988 but that event does not appear to have brought about a change in political direction, since St Oswald, Ealdorman Æthelwine (Dei Amicus) of East Anglia and Ealdorman Byrhtnoth of Essex were still influential in the Witan. A further change in political and economic policy was brought about between 991 and 993 as a consequence of events associated with a major Scandinavian invasion.155 King Æthelred would have been about twenty-three in 991 and it is unfortunate that there are no diplomas for that year and the subsequent year to provide a flavour of the political attitude of the king. It is certain that, as Keynes has pointed out, in diplomas for a period commencing in 993 King Æthelred refers to his youthful indiscretions, in the period 984 to 991, during which he claimed to have been misled by ministers so that the Church was wrongly dispossessed of property rights. This is a reference to the policy of depoliticising the Church, during which some lands were returned to secular use and it is possible that some of Æthelred’s ministers took personal advantage of the changes. A further change in political direction is evident by 993 when Æthelred’s mother, Queen Ælfthryth, returned to witness diplomas. Furthermore, Ælfgar, the son of Ealdorman Ælfric, who had been exiled in 985, was blinded in 993 and, as he had been one of Æthelred’s advisors and had benefited during the period 984 to 991, it is possible that his punishment was part of the reaction against the party he represented.156

A different interpretation of the events of this period and the part played by King Æthelred is quite feasible. The punishment of the bishopric at Rochester may have been fully justified according to the tenets of the time. ‘Harrying’ may be too strong a term to apply to this punishment but even a harrying might have been justified. Harrying was the ultimate weapon in the king’s armoury, to be used against acts of civil disobedience and defiance of the king’s authority. The annals remind us of the event and the year but assume that the reader will know the reasons for the harrying, because the writer would expect that so important and rare an event would be well remembered. There had been similar harryings in earlier reigns, including the harrying of Thanet during the reign of King Edgar the Peaceable,163 and there were harryings in following reigns. Where the annals give an indication of reason, a harrying is justified by the murder of royal officers or merchants who were deemed to be under royal protection.164 Some of Æthelred’s references to youthful indiscretions in his charters during and after the year 993 may simply be aping the regrets of St Augustine, the classic Christian example of a saint who had deliberately put off submission to the will of God during his youth. However, by 993 the change in political direction is evident and it is also evident that Æthelred was acting as his own chief minister and continued to do so for many years.

Specific evidence of reaction in the period 984 to 991 is sparse.157 However, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has a reference to the king’s treatment of Rochester, which was described as though it were a harrying in later sources. This was in the year 986: Here (in this year) the king did for the bishopric at Rochester.158 The Chronicle does not explain the king’s actions. Lands were appropriated from Rochester at this time and were restored some years later.159 King Æthelred refers to his youthful indiscretions when making restitution and in the case of the Rochester lands he blames one of his leading

Though there had been a reaction in the period 984 to 991 and the Church may have suffered as a result, there is no evidence of the degree of excess and breakdown in social and political order that marked the brief three-year reign

154 Stubbs, Memorials of Saint Dunstan, pp. 356-7. Stubbs’ translation from the Old English. 155 Chapter 3, below. 156 See Keynes Diplomas, p. 184. Ælfgar was the son of the ealdorman of Mercia: see the Mercian family tree, above. 157 We owe much to Keynes’ analysis of Æthelred’s charters for our knowledge of this period: see ‘The period of youthful indiscretion, 984c.993’ in Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 176-86. 158 ASC D s.a. 986, supported by ASC CE. The annal originates in the Æthelredian Exemplar and the agreement of DC with E at this time means either that the events occurred between January and September 986, or that the scribe who copied the annals into the exemplar of ASC E was uncertain about the exact time of year. My translation ‘did for’ [fordyde] is influenced by Swanton; it is less elegant but also less emotive than Whitelock’s ‘laid waste’. 159 See S.893 and compare S.864. See also S.885.

160

See Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 184-6 for the importance and downfall of this minister. 161 See S.889 and compare with S.861 with regard to Winchester, for instance. 162 These include John of Worcester and William of Malmesbury; but see Chapter 6, below. 163 ASC D E F s.a. 966. 164 Giles, Roger of Wendover’s Flowers of History, s.a. 974 and ASC CD s.a. 1041.

23

The Reign of Æthelred II of King Æthelred’s brother, Edward. The following quotation from a paper by Dr Wormald, describing a visit to England by Abbo of Fleury to advance monastic learning, provides a more accurate flavour of this period:

and density data. Dr Briffa and his associates have published some of the results of their studies together with their assessment of variations in temperatures since c. 500 in northern regions. Although the results of their research call into question some previous findings, they support the view that in the latter part of King Edgar’s reign and for most of King Æthelred’s reign, the mean summer temperatures (defined as April to August) were appreciably higher than the norm.168

When Archbishop Oswald of York, himself an alumnus, asked Fleury for an expert to teach his new foundation of Ramsey, Abbo was the obvious choice. He was thus the only major continental reformer who actually visited England (985-7), and his fortunes were mixed: he got on splendidly with Oswald and Dunstan (whose vita was in his baggage, for versification, on the day of his death); but whereas he was given gifts by Ealdorman Æthelwine, he received ‘only words’ from king Æthelred (then in his antimonastic phase); and he was later to complain that English food, and especially English beer, made him permanently fat.165

It was observed above, in Chapter One, that the assimilation of the north of England into the political and social framework of the south was an important economic advance. It brought with it closer links with the thriving trading communities of York and other northern centres and enhanced the importance of the money economy. External trade, in which wool was a major export, was increasing and there was a commensurate increase in internal trade. It is evident that the Roman road network was still in use and that bridges were well maintained. The maintenance of bridges to facilitate the movement of people and goods remained one of the public duties that the king required of the recipients of charters devolving property rights to individuals or to the Church. The rivers were important highways for the movement of people and goods, since heavy weights could be more readily transported by ship rather than drawn by horses and there is much evidence for the importance of river transport. Darby finds evidence in the Domesday Book for navigation along inland waterways:

The king’s lack of interest in Abbo may reflect an antimonastic phase in his thinking. Equally it may indicate that his political attention was diverted elsewhere. Wormald has suggested that King Æthelred’s first law code may have been issued at ‘Bromdun’ in 984 or 985 and that he was legislating against urban violence and evasion of toll and to provide surety against theft and reinforce the coinage laws.166 The laws on coinage are important evidence of the king’s activities at a time when he and his ministers were dealing, successfully, with economic problems and returning government finances onto a sound footing.

One indication comes in the description of Wallingford on the Thames. In 1066 its burgesses did service for the king with horses or by water (cum equis vel per aquam) upstream to Benson and Sutton Courtney, downstream to Reading, and overland to Blewbury. There is more detail about navigation along some northern rivers. The Witham and the Trent are connected by Foss Dyke, an artificial channel some seven miles long, constructed by the Romans. It leaves Witham near Lincoln and joins the Trent at Torksey, so providing a connection by water between the Wash, Lincoln and York.169

The English Economy Climate can have a profound influence upon economic development. From mid-way through the reign of King Edgar until the turn of the tenth century, England benefited from an increase in mean temperatures. The period 960 to 1000 was unusually warm in relation to the average temperatures between the year 300 and the present day. In very general terms, this meant that coastal and foreign trade was easier and agricultural land was more productive. After the year 1000 the mean temperatures gradually became colder. This is well illustrated by ‘map’ 14, in Hill Atlas.167 Hill’s ‘map’ is based on oxygen isotope variations in the northwest Greenland icecap, which are deemed to represent broadly the course of temperature variations.

Darby was writing about the state of the waterways in 1066, but some fifty years earlier, in 1013, the facility to navigate these northern rivers with his fleet was a key element in Swein Forkbeard’s successful invasion and conquest of England.170 Coastal transport of goods was also very important and most of the important trading

In recent years detailed studies into weather patterns over a considerable period of time have been undertaken based on dendroclimatological methods using tree ring-width

168 Briffa et al, ‘Fennoscandian summers from AD 500: temperature changes on short and long timescales’, Climate Dynamics: 1992, pp. 111-19, and Briffa et al, ‘A 1,400-year tree-ring record of summer temperatures in Fennoscandia’, Nature, 346: 1990, pp. 434-9. 169 Darby, Domesday England, p. 301 and p. 302, Figure 103 ‘Connections between York, Lincoln and Nottingham’. See also, Hart C. The Danelaw, London: The Hambledon Press, 1992, Appendix 18.2 North-South Communications in the Danelaw, pp. 528-32. 170 Chapter 4, below.

165

Wormald, ‘Æthelwold and his Continental Counterparts: Contact, Comparison, Contrast’ in Bishop Æthelwold: His Career and Influence, ed. B. Yorke, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1988, pp. 13-42 at p. 23. Compare Keynes, Diplomas, pp 176-86. 166 Wormald P. ‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, in Ethelred the Unready: Papers from the Millenary Conference, ed. D. Hill, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 59, 1978, pp. 47-80 at pp. 63-4. 167 Hill, Atlas, p. 9.

24

A Young King: 978 - 991 centres at this time had access to the sea. Thus, coastal transport needs, as well as overseas trade, meant that the Anglo-Saxons had a large number of ships. The ready availability of many ships explains how King Æthelred was able to commandeer a large fleet when and where he wanted at relatively short notice.171

traders were journeying regularly through France, Germany and Italy, since trade routes and convoys of traders were necessary to facilitate safe passage through these countries. London was the most important trading community and the country’s largest city, with a population of some ten thousand people. It was largely built of wood and, like all the towns and cities in England was prone to disastrous fires from time to time. It is evident that recovery from fire disaster was achieved in a prompt manner. In 962 ‘that great fatally destructive fire was in London, and (Saint) Paul’s Minster burnt down and that same year was built anew’179 During this first period of Æthelred’s reign there was another great fire of London and the annals for 982 record that: ‘That same year the burgh [fortified inner city] of London burnt down’.180 The importance of York has already been noted, but also on the east coast trade expanded rapidly in other towns subject to Scandinavian influence, such as Lincoln and Norwich. Indeed the population was already increasing more rapidly in these areas than it was in Wessex; a continuing phenomenon that was to have important social and political consequences from early in the eleventh century.

It is evident that good communications throughout the country must have been in place or the strong centralised government based on Wessex and the southeast and controlling much of present-day England would not have been possible. The places that King Edgar and King Æthelred are known to have visited have been mapped,172 and it is evident that they spent most of their time in or near the Thames Valley; so more distant provinces were controlled through the ealdormen and thegns, bishops and abbots, many of whom feature regularly as witnesses to the king’s charters, demonstrating their ability to move about the country with relative ease. The people at the top of the social hierarchy, from the king down, were itinerant. They had the facilities and the trained retainers to ensure that they could travel in comfort. It is no accident that one of Archbishop Ælfric’s prized possessions, specifically mentioned in his will, was his tent.173 No doubt it and its furnishings were splendid to behold as would befit an archbishop of Canterbury.

Perhaps the most important and instructive record of economic development at this time is to be found by a study of the currency.181 It had been reformed towards the end of King Edgar’s reign to facilitate his ‘imperial’ ambitions. Anglo-Saxon moneyers were, in effect, government officials controlled by very strict regulation of their activities and subject to stringent punishment if they failed to carry out their duties to the letter. They were handsomely rewarded for their work. In theory, an Anglo-Saxon moneyer was supposed to make 256 coins from each pound of silver, retain 16 coins and provide the client, who had provided the silver, with 240 silver pennies. Essentially, the 240 pennies were needed by the nobility, churchmen and merchants to pay their dues to the king. In practice, the king ordered his moneyers to give more than 240 silver pennies in exchange for a pound weight of silver, thus reducing the average weight of each coin. This excess number of silver coins made from a pound weight of silver is termed ‘the premium’ and this devise was used to encourage merchants and others to bring silver to the moneyers to make into coins. The premium represented a genuine profit to the provider of silver, since the king continued to accept 240 pennies to the pound in commutation of all dues. It should be observed that silver coins represented the currency of

The relative peace during this period was a great encouragement to trade, which expanded with other communities in the British Isles and with Scandinavia. The coin evidence in Scandinavia and Ireland points to the increase in trade with those countries.174 Trade with continental Europe was also facilitated. The annual payment of ‘Peter’s Pence’ to the Pope,175 the expectation that an archbishop could travel to Rome for his pallium at almost any time of the year,176 early eleventh century, evidence that English traders were being heavily taxed on their passage over the Alps177 and evidence of contacts between the English court and its counterparts in Flanders, Germany and Burgundy178 shows that English 171

Chapter 3, below. Hill, Atlas, ‘maps’ 160 and 162. 173 ‘… into sce Albæne. 7 his bec ealle he cwæð eac þyderin. y his geteld.’ … to St Alban’s he bequeathed all his books and his tent. Whitelock, Wills, no, XVIII, pp. 52-3. Ælfric was archbishop of Canterbury from 995 to 1005. 174 The payment of geld and heregeld during King Æthelred’s reign also encouraged an increase in trade with Scandinavian countries: Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 14-22. 175 Liebermann, Gesetze der Angelsachsen, vol. I: II Eadgar, c. 4 – 4.3 pp. 198-9; Cnut 1027, c. 16 p. 277; Romscot, c. 1 – 2 p. 474; see also Gesetze der Angelsachsen, vol. III, pp. 267-8. 176 Archbishop Ælfsige went in the winter of 958 but died in severe weather whilst attempting to cross the Alps: Brooks, Early History of the Church of Canterbury, p. 238 and p. 375 note 98. His successors as archbishop were more fortunate: Dunstan in 960 (ibid. p. 244); Sigeric (Ibid. p. 262 and p. 380 note 27); Ælfric in 995 (ibid. p. 259 and ASC F s.a. 995); Lyfing in c. 1017 (Ibid. p. 288); Æthelnoth in 1022 (Ibid. p. 291). See also, Liebermann, Gesetze der Angelsachsen, vol. I, p. 276, Cnut 1027, c. 7. 177 Liebermann, Gesetze der Angelsachsen, vol. I, p. 276, Cnut 1027 provides evidence both of Cnut’s own visit to Rome (cc. 1 – 3) and English trade (cc. 6 and 8). 178 Liebermann, Gesetze der Angelsachsen, vol. I, p. 276, Cnut 1027, c. 5. ASC C, s.a. 982 is a reminder of the blood relationship between the Emperor Otto’s eldest son and the House of Cerdic. The writer of the 172

Encomium, resident in Flanders, evidences his links with English royalty. The Lives of saints Dunstan, Oswald and Æthelwold reveal links between them and their continental counterparts (though Æthelwold did not visit the Continent himself, he sent one of his monks) and there were reciprocal visits to English monasteries by monks from the Continent. Æthelweard’s Chronicle evidences the links between the House of Cerdic and noble families on the Continent. 179 ASC A s.a. 962. 180 ASC C s.a. 982. 181 The views on the currency expressed here and elsewhere in this book are based on a paper which was read at the Leeds International Medieval Congress in 1999. A synopsis of this paper is provided as Appendix 3, below.

25

The Reign of Æthelred II government and was very important because then, as now, a very high proportion of this currency passed through government hands on a regular and frequent basis.182

available there was no further manipulation of the currency until events associated with the Scandinavian invasion in the years 991 to 993, described below in Chapter 3, prompted a heavy demand for silver coinage.

When King Edgar reformed the currency, the initial premium was 32 extra pennies for each pound weight of silver. Edgar wanted to encourage the production of silver coins because he was raising revenues centrally to pay for his imperial ambitions. In historical terms, this proved to be a relatively modest premium. Because of the troubles associated with the reign of King Edward, the premium eventually grew to be 80 pennies for each pound weight of silver. This was potentially an inflationary increase that enriched individuals and threatened to devalue the revenues of central government. This was part of the threat to central authority that caused the West Saxon nobility to unite behind the monarchy after the murder of King Edward. However, there was some uncertainty after Edward’s murder and this is reflected in the first issue of coins in King Æthelred’s name, known by numismatists as ‘normal small cross’, which had a premium of 80 silver pennies.183 With a premium of this size, the threat to the value of central revenues remained. However, a period of peace and stability reduced the demand for silver pennies by central government. It is clear that the king’s Witan recognised the danger of a high premium to the royal revenues, from the action that was then taken to reduce the premium.

Character of the young king King Æthelred will never rid himself of the sobriquet ‘the Unready’, although a moment’s reflection would indicate that the character depicted in popular history could never have ruled for thirty-eight years. That said, despite his long reign and the relatively rich historical sources for the period of his reign, King Æthelred remains an enigma. The information gleaned from the sources for the years from 978 to 991 above allow us to recognise the early development of the man. In 978, when he became king, he was only ten years of age and, in effect, the government of his kingdom was controlled by his mother, Bishop Æthelwold and a Witan in which the majority of councillors supported them. When Bishop Æthelwold died in 984, King Æthelred was sixteen and ready to take the lead in the Witan. It is significant that his mother, Queen Ælfthryth, does not feature in charter witness lists from 984 until 993 and it is likely that the young king fell under the influence of councillors, including Archbishop Dunstan, who favoured the secularisation of some of the land gifted to the Church. Certainly, King Æthelred favoured such a policy, which in a later period of his reign he regretted, stating as much in the preamble to some of his charters. However, he retained and strengthened central control of the provinces as exemplified by the information we can glean from the charters of councillors such as Archbishop Oswald. Although he and his immediate friends and advisors may have aggrandised themselves at the expense of the Church, there was no indiscriminate secularisation of Church property as had occurred during the reign of his brother, King Edward (the Martyr). On the contrary, King Æthelred and his Witan reduced the power of the old nobility when they, in effect, abolished the ealdormanry of Mercia taking all its vast wealth into royal possession. They also strengthened the currency. These two acts together strengthened the centralised wealth and personal power of the king in a manner which his father, King Edgar, might have envied. During this period, King Æthelred showed himself to be a strong leader; there is evidence of him leading a military expedition, and an harrying such as that at Rochester – an act which must have been justified at the time – can only have taken place on the direct authority of the king. In 991, he was only twenty-three years of age although he had then reigned for thirteen years. Charter evidence, such as the charters of Archbishop Oswald, and references to him in contemporary poetry, such as the Battle of Maldon, indicate that the young king was respected and popular.

In 985, the Mercian ealdorman was disgraced and banished and the king confiscated all his property. This punishment had important economic consequences because it enabled the king to increase his personal revenues and provide his local representatives in Mercia with lands upon which to sustain themselves. This meant that he needed to raise less money centrally for these purposes and so there was less demand for silver coins. Because there were already sufficient coins in circulation to satisfy normal requirements, the king’s ministers were able to call in the dies and replace them with new dies, for an issue known as ‘first hand’ by numismatists. The king’s council then ordered moneyers to use the new dies for the production of coins with a premium of only 32 pence per pound. In other words, the coinage reverted to the standard used by King Edgar. Such action safeguarded the intrinsic value of the royal revenues and restored confidence in the coinage. Whilst this was happening, the king and his ministers were redefining and reinforcing the coinage laws and this activity finds expression in the law code known as IV Æthelred, which probably belongs to this period.184 On the evidence 182 Gold was a separate measure of wealth and was often turned into gold rings, or armbands, so that people could display their wealth. Gold, in effect, represented a parallel currency. There was a relationship between silver and gold with a weight ratio of 12:1. 183 This premium is a reflection on the problems in Edward’s reign; however, the cost of King Æthelred’s coronation must also have had a significant influence on this premium. 184 Wormald, Making of English Law, p. 328 says: ‘The truncated set of laws in ‘IV’ are the most sophisticated discussion of the subject [coinage] in the Anglo-Saxon corpus.’ In a footnote, 296, he notes that his dating of this legislation, in his 1978 paper, ‘no longer seems so

likely’. However, it certainly seems to be an appropriate time in relation to coinage manipulation during Æthelred’s reign and in relation to the corpus of his legislation as a whole. Note also that, ibid. p. 327, Wormald repeats the evidence that IV Æthelred preceded III Æthelred.

26

3 A King in his Prime: 991-1005 invasion of 991 was on a scale which made it quite different from the coastal raiding that England had suffered during the reigns of Eadwig, Edgar and Edward and in the first decade of Æthelred’s reign.

A Scandinavian Invasion The long period of peace, which commenced with Eadwig’s succession in 955, was brought to an end during the year 991 by a Scandinavian invasion of England. The reasons for the invasion are complex and are associated with a westerly movement of Scandinavians commencing in present day Sweden. There, Scandinavian trading and expansionist interest in Russia and the southern Baltic was diverted into a warlike thrust towards the west, which was headed by the Swedish kings. The Swedes had troubled the king of Denmark, Harald Gormsson, known as ‘Bluetooth’, for many years and, for a time, during his reign Denmark fell under the aegis of Swedish rulers. Harald was able to reestablish his unfettered rule in Denmark partly because the Swedes were distracted by internal warfare amongst members of the ruling family. In 987, Harald was succeeded by his son, Swein Haraldsson, known as ‘Forkbeard’. Swein’s succession occurred in circumstances that amounted to a civil war in Denmark during which Swein’s forces were defeated by King Harald. However, the king died as a result of wounds sustained in battle and he was succeeded by Swein Forkbeard. The Swedes began to exert pressure on Denmark again and, in c. 990, Swein Forkbeard was forced into exile and travelled with his lið, to England. He was not alone in travelling west. Norwegians, who had been in the service of the king of Holmgard/Novgorod in Russia, travelled along the southern Baltic coast and came to England at about the same time. One such lið was led by Olaf, a Norwegian who some years later won the throne of Norway saying that he was the long lost son of King Tryggvi and thus a direct descendent of King Harald Fairhair. In England, they were joined by Norwegian liðs from Norway, led by Jósteinn,185 a relative through marriage of King Tryggvi.186 Thus, a number of Scandinavian liðs joined together in England at about the same time and there is a strong likelihood that their forces also included Slavs, who had joined them in the Baltic, and Celtic associates of the Norwegians. England, like other European countries, suffered from coastal raiding from time to time but this conjunction of many liðs, composed of Scandinavians and their allies, formed a here, or ‘enemy army’.187 This here represented a major threat and the

The Scandinavian here attacked the eastern coast of England, ravaging Ipswich and threatening Maldon. An indication of the size of the here and the problems it created may be gathered from the fact that a fyrd was gathered under the command of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth. This fyrd forced a battle upon a large band of Scandinavians which was threatening Maldon. The battle that followed is described in one of the most famous poems in the Old English language, a poem with a contemporary provenance.188 The writer indicates the confidence and pride of the Anglo-Saxons at that time by putting the following words into the mouth of Byrhtnoth as he defied the invaders: … here stands with his company an earl [eorl] of unstained reputation, who intends to defend this homeland, the kingdom of Æthelred, my lord’s people and his country. They shall fall, the heathens in battle.189 The outcome of the battle was a defeat for the English in which their leader, Ealdorman Byrhtnoth, was killed. Although many of the Anglo-Saxons fled when their leader fell, there was no lack of bravery amongst his ‘household companions’: Then the head of the army had fallen, Æthelred’s earl [eorl]. They all saw, the companions of his hearth, that their lord lay dead. Then proud followers pressed forward there, men lacking cowardice pushed on eagerly: they all intended then one of two things, to lose their lives or to avenge their friend.190 As defeat in the battle became inevitable, the remaining warriors were stirred to acts of heroism, expressed by the poet in words he puts into the mouth of an old retainer [eald geneat]: The spirit must be the firmer, the heart the bolder, courage must be the greater as our

185

Another Scandinavian leader was named Guðmund Steitarson. He is one of the three leaders named in King Æthelred’s treaty with the here, numbered in the Laws as II Æthelred. He is otherwise unknown. 186 His sister, Astrið, married King Tryggvi: thus, he was the uncle of Olaf Tryggvason. See Jónsson F. (ed.), Heimskringla, Nóregs Konunga Sogur af Snorri Sturluson, København: S. L. Møllers Bogtrykkeri, 1911, p. 144, K. 52. 187 The Old English language had distinct words for ‘enemy army’ (here) and their own army (fyrd). The Old English terminology has been retained to convey this distinction. The Old English word for ‘ship’ (scip) can be added to here or fyrd to convey the meaning that an army

was using ships. The spelling ‘fyrd’, which features in ASC sources, is preferred to ‘fierd’. 188 Scragg D. (ed.), The Battle of Maldon A.D. 991, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991, p. 32. 189 Scragg, The Battle of Maldon A.D. 991, p. 21, Scragg’s translation. The use of words such as ‘eorl’ rather than Old English ‘ealdormann’ is indicative of the poem’s provenance: see Scragg, The Battle of Maldon A.D. 991, p. 32 and note 14, and Scragg D. (ed.), The Battle of Maldon, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1981, pp. 26-8. 190 Scragg, The Battle of Maldon A.D. 991, p. 27.

27

The Reign of Æthelred II strength diminishes. Here lies our leader all cut to pieces, the great man in the dirt. He will have cause to mourn for ever who thinks of turning away from this battlegame now. I am advanced in years; I do not intend to leave, but I beside my own lord, beside that wellbeloved man, intend to lie.191

force. On the advice of Sigeric, archbishop of Canterbury, the English negotiated a winter truce with the here. In that year it was advised that tribute should first be rendered to the Danish men [Deniscum mannum] because of the great terror they were creating along the coast; that (tribute) was at first 10,000 pounds. Archbishop Sigeric first advised that plan.197

Although the Anglo-Saxon fyrd was defeated, the poem makes it clear that the Scandinavian here suffered heavy losses, and our sources make no suggestion that the here overran Maldon following this battle. The English losses were significant. One of the purposes of the poem seems to have been to commemorate some of the men who fell in the battle. Twenty of the men who died are named192 and, allowing for the deaths of some ordinary retainers, the total losses may have approached the death toll of 81 men recorded in a battle near Dean in the year 1001.193 This indicates that several hundred Scandinavians were involved in the battle of Maldon and this, coupled with the evidence of the here’s subsequent activities, indicates that the total invading force probably numbered between 1000 and 2000 men,194 at a time when such a number was equivalent to the population of a large Anglo-Saxon town.

The phrase ‘Deniscum mannum’ may seem odd for a here led by Norwegians, but, in 1016, the writer of the Æthelredian Exemplar may have been influenced by the fact that the Danish king was England’s prime enemy, or, alternatively, his sources may have been influenced by a usage dating back to earlier, ninth century, invasions. In any event, this Scandinavian here would have included a significant number of men from Denmark. It is not surprising to find the archbishop of Canterbury initiating this major policy decision. He was a leading adviser of the king and had a particular interest in dealing with the problem since the here was probably raiding in Kent for winter provisions, in territory where the archbishop had specific legal, political and social responsibilities. A winter truce was a solution that earlier kings, including Alfred the Great, had resorted to in similar circumstances. In 1016, the writer of the Æthelredian Exemplar implied that this payment for a winter truce was not a good policy decision.198 However, in the circumstances and at that time it must have seemed a realistic course of action. It cannot be accounted an example of English weakness and a failure to provide a warlike response to an invasion. The English had just fought and lost a battle at Maldon, it was not normally possible to maintain an English fyrd in the field during the winter months, and the English used the winter respite to prepare an aggressive military solution to the invasion. Despite the presence of the Scandinavian here on the coasts of eastern and south-eastern England, there was no apparent disruption to monastic activities. There was a reconsecration at Ramsey:

The events in the year 991, leading up to and including the battle of Maldon, are referred to in versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: Here (in this year) Ipswich was plundered, and very soon after that Ealdorman Byrhtnoth was killed at Maldon.195 After the battle of Maldon, the Scandinavian here journeyed down the coast and attacked Kent. Then, with winter approaching, it took up a position where the Scandinavians and their ships were relatively safe from attack, possibly on the Isle of Sheppey or the Isle of Thanet.196 This created serious difficulties for King Æthelred and his Witan. An English fyrd could only be maintained in the field for a limited period and subsequent events make it apparent that the Scandinavians could not easily be attacked by a land

St Oswald the archbishop consecrated the abbey of Ramsey, which he and God’s friend [Dei Amicus] Æthelwine, ealdorman of East Anglia, had built with divine help, being supported by the assistance of Æscwig, bishop of Lincoln, on Tuesday, 8 November [991].199

191

Ibid. p. 31. 192 Ealdorman Byrhtnoth, son of Byrhthelm; Eadric; Wulfstan, son of Ceola; Ælfhere; Maccus; Wulfmær, Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s sister’s son; Edward the Tall, Byrhtnoth’s chamberlain; Wulfmær the Younger, son of Wulfstan; Ælfnoth; Offa the thegn, kinsman of Gadd; Ælfwine the Mercian, son of Ælfric, grandson of Ealdorman Ealhhelm; Leofsunu of Sturmere; Dunnere, ‘a simple yeoman’; Æscferth of Northumbria, son of Ecglaf; Æthelric, brother of Sibyrht; Wistan, son of Thurstan, descendant of Wigelm; the brothers Oswold and Eadwold; Byrhtwold, the old retainer; Godric, son of Æthelgar. For more about them, see Locherbie-Cameron, ‘The Men Named in the Poem’, pp. 238-49. 193 This chapter, below. 194 Or ‘men and boys’ since our sources indicate that it was normal practice for boys as young as twelve to be members of a lið. 195 ASC CDE s.a. 991. See also, ASC A s.a. 993, an annal that confuses the events of 991 with a subsequent attack on the east coast in 993. See Bately, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle MS A, pp. lix-lxii and Bately J. M. ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’, in The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991, pp. 37-50. 196 For the itinerary of this Scandinavian here, see Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 32-46.

197

ASC CDE s.a. 991, supported by a late addition in the margin of ASC

A.

198

The quotation in ASC CDE, above, is derived directly from the Æthelredian Exemplar. The writer strongly disapproved of the policy of making payments for truces during King Æthelred’s reign. So this reference to a ‘first’ payment being on the advice of the archbishop, in context, implies disapproval of the recommendation. 199 Translation from Darlington & McGurk, Chronicle of John of Worcester, pp. 438-41. John of Worcester’s Chronicle was written in the twelfth century, but the information in this annal is derived from early eleventh century sources including a Life of St Oswald attributed to Byrhtferth of Ramsey.

28

A King in his Prime: 991 – 1005 St Oswald, bishop of Worcester and archbishop of York, died in late February 992 and was buried in the church of St Mary at Worcester. The Chronicle of John of Worcester tells us that:

Scandinavian Vikings who might be tempted to invade. Unfortunately, the strategy was only partially successful and the Æthelredian Exemplar blames the English leadership for not forcing a naval engagement.

Ealdwulf, the venerable abbot of Peterborough, succeeded him, and in his place Cenwulf exercised the abbatial office. Not long after the death of the blessed Oswald, Æthelwine [of East Anglia] an ealdorman of glorious memory, and God’s friend, died. … His body was borne to Ramsey with the utmost honour, and buried by St Ælfheah, bishop of Winchester.200

Then Ealdorman Ælfric sent (someone) to warn the here, and then in the night before the day on which they were to have come together [joined battle], he fled by night from the fyrd, to his own great disgrace, and then the here escaped, except that (the crew of) one ship was slain.202 What appears to have happened is that the English scipfyrd took up a position near to the enemy. Most of the ships in the English scipfyrd would have been drawn up on or near the shore for provisioning. Messengers were sent to the here, in line with the English strategy, to challenge it to a sea battle. It must be conjectured that the English were slow to man their ships the following morning and that Ealdorman Ælfric was to blame. The enemy, who had no interest in fighting a sea battle if it could be avoided, got under way early and sailed past the English position. English ships set off in pursuit but succeeded in forcing only one of the enemy ships into an engagement. The crew of that ship was slain. The enemy fleet (sciphere) had been dislodged from its safe moorings but there were no immediate prospects of forcing a sea battle on it. The English scipfyrd was made up of ships which were needed for other purposes, such as coastal and river trading, and so it was dispersed. Some ships from the English scipfyrd sailed in open order towards London, not expecting to encounter the enemy fleet. This was a second tactical error on the part of the English leadership, as the annal makes clear:

Again, the activities of liðs from the invading here do not appear to have disrupted these successions to office and the burial of Ealdorman Æthelwine in eastern England. Despite this, it is evident that the English were faced with a major strategic problem as the Scandinavian invaders remained in southern England over the winter of 991 / 992. The magnitude of the problem is suggested by the actions taken by the king and his Witan, when the English resolved to attack the Scandinavian here early in the campaigning season of the year 992. Then the king and all his councillors [Witan] decreed that all the ships that were of any value should be assembled at London. And the king then entrusted the fyrd to the leadership of Ealdorman Ælfric and Earl Thored and Bishop Ælfstan and Bishop Æscwig, and they were to try if they could entrap the (enemy) here anywhere at sea [utan].201

And then the here met the ships from East Anglia and from London, and they made a great slaughter there and captured the ship, all armed and equipped, on which the ealdorman was [i.e. ‘had been’].203

Although this annal was written a quarter of a century after the events described, and the source from which its information was obtained has not survived, it is still possible to appreciate the logistical problem which faced Æthelred and his ministers. The here had taken up a defensive position on the coast from which it could not be dislodged by an English fyrd. As a result, the English strategy was to send a great fleet (scipfyrd) against the here, threatening to blockade it from the sea and so encouraging the here to put to sea in its ships. It is clear that the English strategy included forcing a naval engagement. As at Maldon, in the previous year, the English leadership recognised that it was not sufficient to force the here to move on to another venue, the English had to inflict a severe defeat on it to encourage it to leave England altogether and to serve as a warning to other

Though loath to fight a sea battle, the here was more than willing to attack and capture English ships, which were not sailing in battle order. Although Ealdorman Ælfric was probably no longer on his ship, its capture by the here must have been particularly galling to the English; it was undoubtedly a large ship and a valuable prize. It is likely that other English ships were also captured in this engagement.204 202

ASC CDE s.a. 992. ASC CDE s.a. 992. The slaughter may not have been one-sided. John of Worcester quotes a tradition that many ‘Danes’ were slaughtered. However, his source is suspect: it confuses Ealdorman Ælfric of Hampshire with the banished ealdorman of Mercia of the same name, it misinterprets the English strategy and the part played before and after the sea-battle by Ealdorman Ælfric. See Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 39-42 and Darlington & McGurk, Chronicle of John of Worcester, pp. 440-3. 204 There have been various interpretations of these events, some in early sources. This account is based upon the analysis of the evidence in Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 38-42. 203

200

Translation from Darlington & McGurk, Chronicle of John of Worcester, pp. 440-41. 201 ASC CDE s.a. 992. I have translated utan [‘outside’ or ‘without’] as ‘at sea’ following Whitelock EHD s.a. 992 since, in context, it means outside the estuary or harbour. Ælfric was ealdorman of Hampshire, Thored was earl of Northumbria, Ælfstan was either the bishop of London or Rochester, and Æscwig was bishop of Dorchester: see Swanton, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 127 and notes.

29

The Reign of Æthelred II The sciphere then continued up the east coast of England. Our sources do not trace its journey, which suggests that there were no further significant events at that time. The sciphere must have caused some disruption to trade as it progressed north and, no doubt, ships from the fleet could have undertaken coastal raiding expeditions. However, the sciphere was rich with booty and with the geld, or tribute, which had been received for the winter truce in 991. They were passing through territory populated by people of Danish origin and, more importantly, with trading links to Scandinavia. It is likely, therefore, that the fleet deliberately avoided major conflicts and even bought the cooperation of local magnates. Some ten years later, King Æthelred made reference to such ‘treachery’ on the part of an Essex thegn, in one of his charters.205

unspecified manner and was brought to trial. He was sentenced to be blinded, a sentence that was carried out in the year 993.207 This marked a final chapter in the decline of this leading Mercian family. The ealdormanry remained in abeyance for some fourteen years until, in 1007, ‘Eadric was appointed ealdorman over the kingdom of the Mercians.’208 Return of the Scandinavian Here In the autumn of 992 or the spring of 993 the here attacked Bamburgh: Here in this year Bamburgh was sacked and much booty was taken there, and after that the here came to the mouth of the Humber and brought about great misery there, both in Lindsey and in Northumbria.209

The Scandinavian here journeyed as far as northern Northumbria. It apparently spent the winter of 992 – 993 on the coast of Northumbria. There, it ceased to be a trouble to most of King Æthelred’s subjects. No doubt, the majority of the Witan congratulated themselves that the here had departed and was unlikely to return. It was rich with booty and with goods it had bought with the tribute money so the liðs, which made up the here, might have been expected to disperse to their countries of origin.

The writer of the annals, who was probably based in Worcester, does not often show an interest in northern affairs. Clearly, however, the sack of Bamburgh was a significant event, which warranted recording in sources from which this annalist was able to draw information.210 After this success, the army journeyed south and raided on both sides of the Humber in 993.

The Scandinavian invasion of 991 to 992 had probably been unexpected. Unlike its continental neighbours, England had enjoyed a long period of relative peace and stability. Although the nobility were trained as warriors and there is evidence of some lawlessness and use of military force, there had been no military campaigns in England for many years. Retaliatory attacks on raiders based in peripheral regions were not in themselves sufficient to give the English nobility practical experience of warfare. The response to the invasion had been brave and many nobles and their followers had given their lives fighting the invaders. But it was apparent that the AngloSaxon response had been strategically inadequate. There was probably much recrimination within the king’s council (Witan) and, at about this time, there was a change in political direction in which the king gave up some of his councillors and gave more attention to his mother and former advisers. Before the battle of Maldon, the sons of the banished Ealdorman Ælfric had been making some progress in recovering royal favour, but the family now suffered a double blow. The poet who described the battle of Maldon tells us that one of the men who died in the battle was a young Mercian nobleman named Ælfwine. The poem tells us that he behaved bravely. He was the son of (Ealdorman) Ælfric and the grandson of Ealdorman Ealhhelm of Mercia. Shortly after this Ælfgar, another son of the banished Ealdorman Ælfric, appears to have fallen out of favour. This coincided with changes in the Witan that heralded a return to a position of authority for the king’s mother, Queen Ælfthryth.206 Ælfgar appears to have reacted against the political changes in the Witan in some 205 206

Then a great fyrd was brought together but when they should have joined battle the leaders (were the) first to order the flight. (The leaders) were Fræna, Godwine, and Frythegyst.211 The Æthelredian Exemplar evidences no surprise that the king’s ministers, Fræna, Godwine and Frythegyst, were leading this army, although they were not the natural leaders of society in the eastern provinces for the purposes of raising a fyrd. However, Ealdorman Byrhtnoth had been killed in August 991, Archbishop Oswald of York and Ealdorman Æthelwine of East Anglia had died in 992, and the Northumbrian Earl Waltheof and his son, Uhtred, were preoccupied by the sack of Bamburgh.212 It is apparent that their loss had a significant impact on the ability of the English to oppose the Scandinavian here. There are no other sources to supplement the Æthelredian Exemplar’s version of events but its assessment that the English fyrd should 207

ASC CDE s.a. 993. Some commentators may have been misled into thinking that this Ælfgar was the son of Ealdorman Ælfric of Hampshire. But this cannot be possible since the Hampshire ealdorman must himself have been a young man at this time; he died in battle in 1016. 208 ASC CDE s.a. 1007. 209 ASC CDE s.a. 993. 210 His sponsor was Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester and archbishop of York, which he held in plurality. Sources included northern annals and the exemplar of version E of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which evidences northern interests. See Appendix 2 The Æthelredian Exemplar, below and Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp.167-8. 211 ASC CDE s.a. 993. 212 Earl Thored is not mentioned in our sources after the reference to him in ASC s.a. 992. Ælfhelm was made ealdorman of (? southern) Northumbria in 993 and Leofsige features in the charters as ealdorman of Essex in 994. See Keynes, Diplomas, p. 197.

S.939. Keynes, Diplomas, p. 187 and note 115.

30

A King in his Prime: 991 – 1005 991 but there is no firm evidence for this.216 The attack on Maldon involved only a part of the here and so it is quite feasible that Olaf was elsewhere in England at the time of this battle. ‘Swein’ was Swein Forkbeard, king of Denmark. At the time he was a fugitive from Denmark, having been driven into exile.217 He was to play an increasingly significant part in English history and, by 1016, when this annal was written, he was deemed to have been the most important enemy of the English king. However, a more nearly contemporary annal in ASC A refers to Olaf without mentioning Swein and this indicates that he was not one of the most senior commanders of the here at this time.218 The annal says there were over ninety ships and we are meant to understand from this that the raiding army was extremely large. It is not clear how the annalists defined ‘ship’ for this purpose but the fleet would have consisted of transport ships as well as war ships and, assuming an average manning of about 50 men per ship, the here would have numbered about (90 x 50 =) 4,500 men. This number, which exceeded the population of many of England’s largest cities, may be exaggerated but the here was certainly very large and it readily explains the reluctance of the northern fyrd to engage it in battle. There was an attack on London that was repulsed. The annal says that the enemy attempted to burn the burh; a practical possibility given that the buildings were made of wood and London Bridge, an important element in the city’s defensive strategy, was also made of wood. The raiding army failed and was repulsed with heavy losses. Because of the date of the attack, the survival of London was ascribed to the intervention of the Mother of God; a reminder that at this time there was an increasing reverence for St Mary. The reference to an attack on one specific day is evidence that the here did not attempt a long siege. The here was intent on raiding and looting and London was important because it blocked river access to the rich Thames Valley. However, the raiding army was not prepared to undertake a siege:

have forced a battle on this here is arguable. It was a force of considerable size. It had been responsible for inflicting a military defeat on a fyrd led by one of England’s leading ealdormen. It had sacked Bamburgh, a great, fortified burh from which the local earls ruled an extensive territory that had once been a separate kingdom. In these circumstances the best strategy for the local forces should have been to avoid battle and threaten to destroy any band of Scandinavians, which might set out on a separate raiding expedition. Such a strategy would have been deemed successful when the here left the Humber and journeyed south. Whatever really happened and whatever the objectives of the fyrd’s leadership might have been, the Scandinavian here continued on its journey south. Fræna, Godwine and Frythegyst do not appear to have been disgraced, suggesting that there had been nothing reprehensible in their conduct, so it is likely that the Æthelredian Exemplar is providing an unfair gloss on events in order to support its political bias.213 Later that year, the sciphere approached the Thames and attacked London on 8 September, 993: Here in this year Olaf and Swein came to the burh of London (Lundenbyrig) on the Nativity of St. Mary (8 September) with 94 ships, and then they were fighting resolutely against the burh and they also wanted to destroy [burn] (it) with fire; but there they suffered more harm and misery than they ever thought any defenders would inflict upon them. But the holy Mother of God showed her mercy to the defenders (of the burh) on that day and saved them from their enemies.214 The size of the sciphere, described as over ninety ships,215 suggests that it had received reinforcements from Scandinavia in the spring and as it journeyed south. This was to be expected since the westerly movement of Scandinavians, triggered by events in the eastern Baltic, was still continuing. We know that ‘Olaf’ was the Norwegian adventurer, Olaf Tryggvason. According to the sagas, he had been an exile from his native land since childhood and had been brought up in Holmgard, in present day Russia. He had journeyed with his lið of fellow adventurers from the Baltic and had joined the here in about 991. The here was led by Norwegians including a man named Jósteinn who is said to have recognised Olaf as his sister’s son and therefore the son and heir of King Tryggvi. It followed that Olaf Tryggvason was descended from King Harald Fairhair and had a claim on the Norwegian throne. It is possible that Olaf participated in the Battle of Maldon in August

And then they departed from there, and wrought the greatest misery that any here could ever do in burning, ravaging and slaying, everywhere along the coast in Essex, Kent, Sussex and Hampshire; and at last they seized horses and rode as widely as they wished, and were causing indescribable misery.219 The extent of the devastation after the here had suffered great ‘harm and misery’ in the attack on London is a further indication of its size. The itinerary in this annal informs us that the sciphere returned down the Thames, attacking the land to the north and to the south in Essex and Kent. It then sailed around Kent and made coastal

213 For evidence that the English leaders were not disgraced, see Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 205-8, especially p. 206. 214 ASC CDE s.a. 994. For the date, 8 September 993, see Appendix 1: Chronological analysis. 215 The number of ships quoted should not be read as an exact measure. It means that they were as numerous as the years in the century.

216

Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, p. 36. Ibid, pp. 13, 32-3. 218 ASC A s.a. 991. The treaty, II Æthelred, explained below, names Olaf and two others as leaders of the Scandinavian here. It does not mention Swein. 219 ASC CDE s.a. 994. 217

31

The Reign of Æthelred II attacks on Kent, Sussex and Hampshire. Then the Scandinavians left their ships in a safe place, perhaps using the Isle of Wight, as they were to do on later occasions. The normal pattern was to leave about one third of the force to protect the ships. However, even allowing for this and the losses sustained on the attack on London, it must have been a considerable raiding here of over 2,000 men which ventured inland, seizing horses so that some of their number could ride ahead and surprise the villages which lay in their path. The here would have been gathering provisions as well as loot. It was September when the sciphere started on this raid over southern England and there can be no doubt that its intention was to over-winter for a second time in three years in southern England. This presented the English with a problem, because the practical difficulties of keeping a fyrd in the field during the harvest time and winter were enormous. The king’s council was convened to agree on a course of action:

failed to remove the threat by the use of force in 991 and 992, the king’s council decided upon a different strategy: Then the king sent Bishop Ælfheah and Ealdorman Æthelweard for King Olaf, and hostages were sent to the ships meanwhile. And then they conducted Olaf to the king at Andover with great honour, and King Æthelred stood sponsor to him at confirmation, and gave him gifts in kingly fashion. Then Olaf promised – as also he performed – that he would never come back against the English race in hostility.222 This meeting took place in the winter or spring of 993/4. It was two years later, at the end of 995, that Olaf Tryggvason sailed with a few ships to Norway where the people overthrew Earl Hákon and accepted Olaf as their king. So the reference in this annal to ‘King Olaf’ is a reminder that it was written some time after the events described. The annal is also vague about the terms of the agreement, which was made between Olaf and King Æthelred, to the point of implying that Olaf left England with the whole army immediately. In fact, he remained in England during the next two campaigning seasons and the bulk of the army remained in England after Olaf departed. We are aware of this from a chronological analysis of the events, from reports of events in Icelandic sagas and Welsh annals and, most importantly, because we have a copy of the treaty terms made between Olaf and King Æthelred.223 The treaty is numbered amongst the laws as II Æthelred and it regulates the relationship between the here led by Olaf and others and the English both in ‘Englaland’224 and elsewhere should the sciphere encounter English traders. It is also apparent from this treaty that the here was quartered in England and that it received payment as a mercenary army obeying the orders of King Æthelred and campaigning in the western Channel, the Severn Estuary and the Irish Sea against the king’s enemies and to protect English trade. The use of Scandinavian adventurers as a mercenary force was commonplace in various parts of Europe and there are references to the practice in Russia, Byzantium, Sweden and ‘Poland’ / Pomerania.225

Then the king and his witan decided to send to them and promise them tribute and provisions, on condition that they should cease their harrying. And then they agreed to that, and then the whole here came to Southampton and took (up) winter quarters there; and there they were provisioned throughout all the West Saxon kingdom, and they were paid 16, 000 pounds in money.220 So a truce was agreed on the basis of the English paying money and providing provisions. The provisions were a practical necessity since otherwise the raiding army would have had to continue harrying to obtain them. The evidence for the size of this here has been considered above and the annal comment that provisions were brought in from the whole of Wessex is further confirmation of its great size. The annal also indicates that the Scandinavians held an important burh as a defensive site. Southampton was a prosperous port, with a population of some 2000 people.221 The sciphere would have doubled its population and the control they would have gained over this important channel port would have been of enormous political, economic and strategic value. Via this port the army would have had access to the Continental Channel ports including the great market at Rouen, so there would have been a ready venue for the sale of the loot and slaves they had taken in England. The English, of course, had gained no more than a winter truce and the problem of dealing with the sciphere remained to be dealt with in the following spring. Having

Because of the political purpose of the annals written in 1016, it should be no surprise to find that positive actions taken by King Æthelred and his councillors at this time were ignored. There is no mention of the treaty and no mention of the activities of the mercenary army employed by the king. After suggesting that Olaf agreed to leave England, rather than stay and defend it, the Æthelredian 222 ASC CDE s.a. 994. I have followed Whitelock’s interpretation of the phrase ‘hys onfeng æt bisceopes handa’. 223 Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 46-51. 224 ‘The land of the Angles’, in context, meaning (western) Mercia and Wessex. 225 For an edited text of the treaty and a translation, see Keynes S. ‘The Historical Context of the Battle of Maldon’, in The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991, pp. 81-113 at pp. 103-7. For an analysis of the treaty and its significance, see Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 46-9.

220

ASC CDE s.a. 994. The geld, or tribute payment, was substantial, although there is a debate about whether the amounts specified in the Æthelredian Exemplar should be read as factual figures. For an analysis of geld and the other costs resulting from these invasions, see Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 14-22. 221 Darby, Domesday England, p. 308 suggests the population of Southampton numbered between 1000 and 3000 nearly a century later, although he notes that the details in the Domesday survey for Southampton are ‘fragmentary’.

32

A King in his Prime: 991 – 1005 Exemplar is silent about the activities of the here during the remainder of the year 994 and during the years 995 and 996, the annals simply recording the death of Archbishop Sigeric and the succession of Ælfric as archbishop of Canterbury.226

on land in the south west of England, probably near the south coast of Devon. From there it could be deployed along the Channel coast and into Irish Sea locations and the Æthelredian Exemplar informs us that, in 997, it was deployed in the Severn Estuary in Cornwall and South Wales, probably attacking Celtic Vikings in their villages. It is evident that King Æthelred had formed an alliance with Olaf Tryggvason, whom he had sponsored at confirmation. This was no political conversion on the part of the Norwegian, for he became an enthusiastic Christian with a zeal for undertaking the conversion of pagans. In 995, he decided to return to Norway, encouraged to believe that his countrymen would accept him as king because of the increasing dissatisfaction with the rule of Earl Hákon Sigurdsson. It is likely that he was given substantial help by his friend, King Æthelred, and that he took with him English bishops charged with a mission to convert the Norwegians. However, he took with him only five ships,230 leaving most of the Scandinavian army in England to continue in King Æthelred’s service. In Norway, Olaf had no difficulty in asserting his claim to the throne. There had been a popular uprising against Earl Hákon and the earl had been killed and his sons had fled to Sweden.231 Within a short time of his arrival in Norway, Olaf was proclaimed king. He then undertook a royal progress through the country, during which he converted the provinces to Christianity by force. Later, Iceland was also converted to Christianity on King Olaf’s orders.232

Diverting Scandinavian adventurers from England Following the agreement with Olaf Tryggvason in the winter / spring of 993/4, King Æthelred employed a mercenary army for a period of nine years, until 1002. At first this proved a successful arrangement although it became increasingly unsatisfactory in later years. The treaty, II Æthelred, described the terms on which this mercenary army should be settled on the land, how it should behave in ‘Englaland’ and how it should behave towards the subjects of King Æthelred when on an overseas expedition. The activities of both Olaf Tryggvason and Swein Forkbeard in the period 993 to 995 show that Æthelred was deploying his mercenaries in the Irish Sea and Severn Estuary locations. This was an obvious area for the expansion of English political influence because of the importance of the trading routes. Also, an English dominance in Irish Sea locations further safeguarded Northumbria from the ambitions of ‘Dublin’ kings.227 The westerly movement of Scandinavians remained a continuing threat to peace in England and this was a further reason for Æthelred employing a mercenary army. The treaty, II Æthelred, had specific clauses dealing with a requirement that the mercenary army should defend England against invasion. At first, this agreement was entirely successful. The knowledge that Scandinavians were defending England seems to have been sufficient to divert other Scandinavian liðs to continental Europe. One result of this was an invasion of Saxony in the year 994, which features in the Chronicle of Thietmar of Merseburg whose family was actively engaged in repulsing the invasion.228

Until 995, Swein Forkbeard also remained in England in Æthelred’s service. Early in 995 he and his lið were in Irish Sea locations and he sacked the Isle of Man, a Viking stronghold.233 Then, in that year, he too returned to Scandinavia and commenced a campaign to recover his kingdom of Denmark. He appears to have suffered some military reverses but what he could not achieve by force of arms he achieved by diplomacy. He formed an alliance with the Swedish dowager queen, Sigrid, and married her. As a result of this marriage alliance, the Swedes ceased to oppose his restoration as king of Denmark. Later, he formed an alliance with the sons of Earl Hákon, who were living in exile in Sweden, and married his daughter, Gytha, to Earl Eirik Hákonarson. These diplomatic activities not only safeguarded his position as king of Denmark, but also gave him a measure of authority in Sweden where his marriage to the dowager queen had made him the (step) father of the young King Olof. His alliance with Eirik Hákonarson was eventually to give him a substantial measure of authority over Norway, but that was in the future, since his former ally, King Olaf Tryggvason, was firmly in control of that country and remained so until the year 1000.

From the conclusion of the treaty, II Æthelred, with the Scandinavian army, England enjoyed a long period of peace, although the Æthelredian Exemplar notes significant disruptions of the peace during and after the year 997.229 Æthelred’s mercenary army was established 226 ASC CDE s.aa. 995 and 996. Sigeric died on 28 October, 994: see Appendix 1: Chronological analysis. 227 The Northumbrians had accepted kings from Dublin earlier in the tenth century. See Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 48-9, for evidence about the deployment of this mercenary army. 228 Trillmich W. (trans.) Thietmari Merseburgensis Episcopi: Chronicon, Berlin: Rütten & Loening; in Ausgewählte Quellen zur Deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters, in Verbindung mit vielen Fachgenossen, ed. R. Buchner, IX: Darmstadt, 1974, Bk. IV, cc. 23-5, and Warner, D. A. (trans.), Ottonian Germany: The Chronicon of Thietmar of Merseburg, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001, pp. 168-9. See also Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 25, 42-3, 48, for an explanation of the chronology and importance of these events. 229 The peace was finally ended by a Scandinavian invasion resulting in a complete breakdown in Æthelred’s arrangements with his mercenaries in the period 1001 to 1002. Difficulties with the mercenary army and the invasion in 1001 are described later in this chapter.

230

‘með v. skipum’: Jónsson, Heimskringla, K 47. The sons who fled were Earl Eirik Hákonarson and Svein Hákonarson. Another son, Erling, encountered Olaf’s ships, and was killed. Jónsson, Heimskringla, K. 48 – K 51. 232 Ibid. K. 73, K. 84 233 Williams, Brut Y Tywysogion, s.a. 994 (for 995). 231

33

The Reign of Æthelred II When Olaf and Swein departed from England in 995, most of the mercenary army remained behind in the service of King Æthelred. Rune stone and other evidence would suggest that some of the Scandinavians, in addition to Olaf and Swein and their immediate followers, were sufficiently satisfied with the wealth they had acquired in England and also returned home, so Æthelred’s mercenary army may have been depleted.

of importance in the here, which was under the overall command of the Norwegians Jósteinn, Guthmund Steitarson and Olaf Tryggvason. There may indeed have been an antipathy between Swein and King Æthelred at this time. Certainly, a few years later when Swein became the enemy of Olaf Tryggvason, King Æthelred is known to have blamed Swein for leading Scandinavian incursions on the Essex coast during the years 991 to 993, choosing to ignore the part played by his ally, Olaf Tryggvason.235

Peace in England was safeguarded to some extent by the presence of the Scandinavian mercenary army but there were other reasons for this period of peace. Scandinavian adventurers had suffered significant losses in 994 during the abortive invasion of Saxony. The survivors of this expedition had destabilised the political order in Jutland and it was this that had provided King Swein Forkbeard with the opportunity of invading Denmark with a view to re-establishing his rule over that country. The result of his invasion was a period of warfare between the supporters of Swein and the supporters of Swedish hegemony, which was only resolved by Swein’s marriage to the dowager queen of Sweden, Sigrid. This warfare distracted Danish and Swedish adventurers from their interests in western adventures. There was a similar story in Norway. There Earl Hákon Sigurdsson had been killed and his sons had fled to Sweden so it had been relatively easy for Olaf Tryggvason to establish himself as king. However, there was opposition to Olaf’s attempts to centralise royal authority and to impose Christianity on the pagan Norwegians. This meant that Olaf needed an army during the campaigning seasons of 995 to 998 to reduce internal opposition. Thereafter, he set about creating a war fleet that included some of the largest ships seen in northern waters to that time. His intention was to campaign in the Baltic and seize lands, which he claimed were rightfully his because of his marriage to the (half) sister of King Swein Forkbeard. Thus, Norwegian adventurers were fully occupied for some years. Some Swedish and Danish adventurers travelled to the west during 998 and 999, but there remained sufficient political interest and military activity in Scandinavia to keep many of them away from England. During the period 999 to 1000 Swein Forkbeard and his Swedish and exiled Norwegian allies were preparing for war against Olaf Tryggvason. The manoeuvres of the opposing forces resulted in the sea battle of Svold in the year 1000.234 Olaf Tryggvason died in this battle and the sons of Earl Hákon were able to reestablish their authority in Norway with King Swein Forkbeard’s support. After this there was peace in Scandinavia and Swein Forkbeard had a vested interest in encouraging Scandinavian adventurers to travel abroad.

Development of English Law Codes Manuscript sources show something of how the legislative process was being developed during this period of relative peace. The basis of royal communication was oral and vernacular.236 There were a series of readings at royal assemblies. These would include homiletic passages to remind the assembly of its religious duty and there are many instances of homiletic introductions to the royal charters of this period. Similarly legal codes would be read out, confirming the decisions of the Witan about the law. The law was customary law enforced on behalf of the king by his ministers, for instance the ealdorman and the bishop in the shire court. Sometimes the Witan’s decisions were written down and sent to the provinces,237 sometimes they were written down by, or on behalf of, senior ministers who had heard them promulgated so that they could be referred to when they returned to their provinces. These have been transmitted to us through copies in AngloSaxon and Norman law codes. However, it is evident that there was no statute law and the codes were fragmentary decisions and guidance, not all-embracing and definitive law codes.238 Differing detail in copies of what appears to be codes from the same legislative assembly implies that writers could and did interpret and re-interpret what had been said.239 It is certain that we do not have records of all the legislative decisions of the king’s council. These attributes of the written record, and their limitations, are important to an understanding of Anglo-Saxon law and to any attempt to place legislation in a chronological context. The earliest piece of legislation that can be identified as belonging to the reign of King Æthelred is known as IV Æthelred. Wormald was the first to recognise its chronological place in history,240 although he has subsequently noted some reservations.241 It is a collection of laws that are connected because they were applicable within a burh and, specifically, within the burh of London. Of particular interest is the law appertaining to

The significant invasion of England in 1001, described below, was probably a direct consequence of the establishment of peace and Swein’s hegemony in Scandinavia. There is no evidence that Swein Forkbeard had formed a close friendship with King Æthelred although he was one of the leaders of the king’s mercenary forces. This may reflect Swein’s relative lack

235

S. 939. Wormald, ‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, p. 48. 237 See the Wihtbordestan code, IV Eadgar, c. 15. 238 ‘Not a single legal decision reached in Anglo-Saxon (or indeed Anglo-Norman England) deferred explicitly to an extant decree, let alone quoted one.’ Wormald, Making of English Law, p. 143; see also, Ibid. p. 160. 239 The most extreme example being the two extant versions of VII Æthelred. 240 Wormald, ‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, pp. 62-3. 241 Wormald, Making of English Law, p. 328 and footnote 296. 236

234 The chronology of events is explained in the appendix to Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions.

34

A King in his Prime: 991 – 1005 the coinage, and this helps to identify it as early Æthelredian legislation, promulgated at a place referred to in a later code as ‘Bromdun’. IV Æthelred only survives in a Latin translation made in about the year 1114 in a manuscript known as Quadripartitus.242 In style, this legislation is reminiscent of the codes attributed to the reign of King Edgar, as is much of the Æthelredian law that followed the Scandinavian invasions of 991 to 993.

Scandinavian here, the economy prospered, the population increased and the king and his council promulgated laws for all the people under the king’s immediate jurisdiction. Two pieces of legislation survive from this period, one a law code for Æthelred’s English subjects, the other a similar code for his Danish subjects. These two law codes were promulgated at Woodstock and Wantage in about the years 996 – 997. There is charter evidence of a meeting at Wantage in 997 when it is possible that the second piece of legislation was promulgated and since the earlier Woodstock legislation appears to be closely related to it, it seems likely that it was promulgated within the preceding twelve months. Again we have only post Conquest copies of these pieces of legislation. The Woodstock legislation, known as I Æthelred, specifically claims to be ‘according to the law of the English’. Wormald says of it:

The next piece of extant Æthelredian legislation is known as II Æthelred, or ‘Æthelred’s treaty with the Viking army’, and it can be dated with confidence to winter 993 / spring 994, when it is known that King Æthelred and his ministers were negotiating with the Scandinavian here led by Olaf Tryggvason and others. This legislation is a result of those negotiations, which established that the Scandinavian here should settle in English territory as a mercenary army. It is a fascinating and important piece of legislation tackling the problems posed by claims arising from the killings and ravaging during the invasions; the settlement of a mercenary army on English territory; and the relationship between mercenaries and English both at home and in territories outside Æthelred’s immediate jurisdiction. The only extant copies of II Æthelred are in Post-Conquest manuscripts. These manuscripts incorporate ‘a very full and sophisticated statement of the law on vouching to warranty’, which follows immediately after the clauses of II Æthelred but which is unlikely to be a record of Æthelredian legislation.243

[I Æthelred] is a rare case of a largely homogeneous text with two or even three substantially independent transmissions. For this reason alone, the three texts may not be far from the archetype.244 The Wantage legislation, known as III Æthelred, is a law code for Æthelred’s Danish subjects, using some Danish terminology and differing in the detail of punishment for offences from the comparable English legislation. Wormald agrees that this legislation may date from the year 997 when there was a meeting at Wantage245 and he associates it with the appointment of Bishop Sigeferth to the newly reconstituted bishopric of Lindsey. Wormald comments about the special Danish features of this legislation:

As we have seen, the shock of the Scandinavian invasions during 991 to 993 had political repercussions and, in effect, there was a change in government as King Æthelred responded to a different group of advisers, who included his mother, Queen Ælfthryth. The king himself was in his mid twenties. He had a commanding presence. He was mature, serious and deeply religious. Like St Augustine of Hippo Æthelred claimed to regret the sins of his youth, and yet there is scant evidence of any serious personal misconduct. The homiletic passages, which preface royal charters at this time, are personalised, thoughtful, and full of explanation in a manner that makes it certain that the king has had a direct influence on their preparation. When the Scandinavian leader, Olaf Tryggvason, was brought to him at Andover, King Æthelred welcomed him, gave him substantial gifts as befitted a loyal friend, and stood as Olaf’s godfather at his baptism as a member of the Christian Church. This was a signal mark of respect by the king towards Olaf and there is no doubt that this feeling of respect was mutual. During the period of peace that followed Æthelred’s agreement with Olaf and the other leaders of the

The most logical explanation for this strange situation is that royal advisers from the Danelaw met the king at Wantage in Wessex, and were made responsible for implementing in their own area policies recently applied to southern England at Woodstock and elsewhere.246 The royal advisers included the ealdormen, bishops and thegnes who had a responsibility for administering justice in the shire, hundred and burgh courts. It must be considered probable that those responsible for the Danelaw would have had their own scribes and advisers, who were men who had been born and bred in the Danelaw and so were entirely conversant with local usage; a situation that would accord with the views expressed by Wormald. This book is not the place for a detailed analysis of the laws, which has been undertaken

242

244

See Wormald, ‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, pp. 62-63, for content, and Bromdun as place of issue and suggested date of 984/5. 243 ‘As Liebermann points out, Æthelred’s own laws on vouching to warranty sometimes contradict those in ‘‘II Æthelred’’. The likeliest date for the latter is, on various grounds, the reign of Edgar, who was certainly capable of legislative sophistication.’ Wormald, ‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, pp. 60-1; see also, Wormald, Making of English Law, pp. 369-70, 414-5.

Wormald, Making of English Law, p. 322. See pp. 324 –5 for Wormald’s translation of some of this code. 245 The evidence is in a charter, Kemble, No. 698 (S.891). As Wormald points out, there could have been meetings of the Witan at Wantage at other times. However, in style, it is earlier than legislation influenced by Archbishop Wulfstan, who had a leading role in royal councils from at least 1002 onwards. 246 Wormald, ‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, pp. 61-2.

35

The Reign of Æthelred II elsewhere.247 What is significant for the political development of the Anglo-Saxon state is that the king was still regarded as the ruler of peoples not countries. It is probable that his ‘English’ law codes represented the Witan’s instructions to those responsible for the administration of royal justice in English Mercia, Wessex and the south east of England. Both King Edgar and King Æthelred legislated separately for their Danish subjects and there is evidence of separate legislation for the king’s Northumbrian subjects. What is missing from our law codes is evidence of legislation framed specifically for the king’s ‘British’ subjects in regions of present day Wales and Scotland and this may be a tacit acknowledgement of a difference between the king’s de facto and de jure authority. However, the deployment of Æthelred’s mercenary army in Irish Sea locations indicates the king’s interest in extending his de facto authority amongst these ‘Britons’.

typical saints’ Lives of the period, concentrating on the character, religious background and miraculous occurrences associated with the subject of the story, and avoiding political events that are not directly related to the saint and his career.255 Dunstan’s successors as archbishop of Canterbury continued to play an important political role and Archbishop Sigeric instigated the policy of paying the Scandinavians for winter truces and was influential in developing the policy by which the Scandinavian here became a mercenary army. Bishop Ælfheah had been sent, with Ealdorman Æthelweard, to escort Olaf Tryggvason to the king at Andover and Olaf’s Christian confirmation had been an important symbolic action, which sealed the agreement between Olaf and Æthelred under which the Scandinavians became the king’s mercenary army. There was no great distinction between the secular and religious roles in politics. This was because it was an object of policy to further the cause of Christianity and to convert pagans. Olaf’s confirmation was, in this context, more than a symbolic act. He was a religious as well as a political convert and a direct result of his agreement with Æthelred was that action was taken in Irish Sea locations to extend royal authority and the acceptance of Christianity, whilst an indirect result of the agreement was the establishment of a new political order in Norway and the conversion of the Norwegian people to Christianity in the period late 995 to 1000.

Extension of the Church’s Political Influence Bishop Æthelwold died in 984.248 In the final decade of the tenth century, the king instigated a movement for recognising political and monastic reformers, such as Æthelwold and Dunstan, as saints. Thus, there was a translation of Æthelwold’s body in 996.249 There are two extant versions of a Life of Saint Æthelwold dating from the beginning of the eleventh century, which also refer to Dunstan as a saint.250 A reference to Dunstan having been ‘in Kent’ (i.e. living and dead) for thirty-seven years251 is evidence that passages in an original version of this Life of St Æthelwold must have been written in 996 at about the time of the saint’s translation. Because of similarities, there has been debate about which of the extant versions came first and influenced the other. But the reference evidencing the existence of an earlier, lost version of the Life explains why the two authors have similar passages in their work.252

Archbishop Oswald of York died in 992.256 He had been an influential figure since early in the reign of Edgar, first as bishop of Worcester and then, from 972, as archbishop of York. He had held the sees of Worcester and York in plurality. This was a deliberate political ploy to compensate for the lack of wealth and influence of the northern archbishopric. It was important that York should be held by a man who was loyal to the West Saxon monarchy and it was equally necessary that he should command enough wealth to make a serious political and religious impact in his diocese. Æthelred and his Witan set out to gain political influence through the bishops and abbots, and the north of England was an important location for the development of this policy. It was a policy that was continued after Oswald’s death:

Dunstan died in 988. A scribe, who can only be identified by the letter ‘B’, wrote a Life of Saint Dunstan for Archbishop Ælfric of Canterbury during the closing years of the tenth century.253 At the beginning of the eleventh century, Adelard, a monk of Blandinium in Flanders, based a series of church lessons on ‘B’s Life of Dunstan for Archbishop Ælfheah of Canterbury.254 Both are

And then after Archbishop Oswald’s death, Abbot Ealdwulf succeeded to the see of York and to Worcester, and Cenwulf to the abbacy of Peterborough.257

247

The starting point must be Liebermann, Die Gesetze der AngelSachsen. Robertson, Laws, supplies an edition with an English translation. Indispensable commentary is to be found in Wormald ‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, and Wormald, Making of English Law. 248 Yorke, Bishop Æthelwold, p. 1. 249 Yorke, Bishop Æthelwold, p. 2, quoting Wulfstan, Vita, c.41. 250 Yorke, Bishop Æthelwold, p.1. 251 Ælfric, Life of St. Æthelwold, c. 9, quoted in Whitelock, EHD, no. 235, p. 834. 252 Of course, one of the authors of the extant versions, Wulfric and Ælfric, may have written the lost original. 253 It is dedicated to Archbishop Ælfric of Canterbury and so it is usually dated 995 to 1006. However, the author of the Life of Saint Oswald, which was also apparently written whilst Ælfric was archbishop, refers to the existence of ‘B’s Life of Saint Dunstan. Hence, ‘B’s work should be dated about the end of the millennium. 254 It was probably written for the archbishop between 1006 and 1011, before he was captured and imprisoned by Vikings. Adelard’s few

additions to the story include the place of Dunstan’s exile, which Adelard says was at his own monastery of Blandinium in Flanders. He adds a passage that flatters Archbishop Ælfheah with the story that Dunstan, inspired by God, persuaded King Æthelred that Ælfheah should be made bishop of Winchester. 255 At a much later date, they became the basis for other Lives of St Dunstan, which have much to say about political matters, including the death of King Edward the Martyr; putting a remarkable propaganda twist into the story: see Chapter 6, below. 256 ASC CDE s.a. 992. He died on 29 February, (indictione.v., .ii. kalend. Martii,) according to John of Worcester: Darlington and McGurk, The Chronicle of John of Worcester, pp. 440-1. 257 ASC CDE s.a. 992. ASC E adds that Ealdwulf was (abbot) of Peterborough.

36

A King in his Prime: 991 – 1005 when he was killed,263 not because he sacrificed his life specifically in defence of the Christian faith. It is clear that King Æthelred and his council were promoting the cult of royal saints during this period. In her book The Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England, Susan Ridyard discusses how Æthelred and his council promoted the cult of royal saints. She says:

Oswald had an important role in developing West Saxon authority in western Mercia and founded the church of St Mary at Worcester.258 He developed monastic foundations in the Danelaw in conjunction with Ealdorman Æthelwine, who died in the same year as Oswald. St Oswald also had an important political impact on the marcher regions between the English in his Worcester diocese and their Welsh neighbours.

if Goscelin’s account is correct, Æthelred’s involvement in the translation of St Edith fell squarely within this same period, and was associated with the activities of Ordwulf, royal adviser and founder of Tavistock abbey. It seems, then, that Edward’s cult, and very probably also that of Edith, was fostered by Æthelred at a time when he was working with advisers who had a well-attested interest in the patronage of the church and when, despite the continuing threat of the Danes, the internal affairs of the kingdom were smoothly and constructively run.264

The homiletic preambles to King Æthelred’s charters at this time show that religion was gaining increasing influence on his approach to political decisions. During this period, King Æthelred began to undertake Church reform in a manner that was reminiscent of the work of his father and Bishop Æthelwold. The king made Ælfric archbishop of Canterbury after Archbishop Sigeric’s death in 995. The new archbishop was an advocate for bringing monastic reform into the cathedral chapters and he replaced all the existing Canterbury canons with monks.259 Æthelwold’s contemporaries, Dunstan and Oswald, had not followed Æthelwold’s root and branch replacement of canons with monks in their cathedral chapters. The witness lists of Oswald’s charters show that there was a gradual introduction of monks into the Worcester cathedral chapter and it is likely that Dunstan and Sigeric followed a similar course at Canterbury.

There can be little doubt that, by encouraging a veneration of deceased members of his family, Æthelred was increasing the prestige of the royal family in general and himself in particular. Ridyard goes on to say that there is:

It was also during this period that King Æthelred began to foster the cult of royal saints, in particular encouraging the Church to recognise the sanctity of his dead sister, Edith, and his brother, King Edward the Martyr. The early eleventh-century Life of Saint Oswald claimed that miracles associated with Edward’s intervention occurred from as early as 984.260 In 1001, Æthelred granted Bradford-on-Avon to the nuns of Shaftesbury,261 noting that his brother’s remains were at Shaftesbury and that miracles had been associated with those remains. The date is significant since, on 20th June 1001, King Edward’s remains had been translated again, this time from the churchyard at Shaftesbury to a new tomb within the abbey.262 The dead king seems to have been accorded the title of ‘martyr’ because of his youthful innocence

a fact so fundamental that it rarely receives explicit mention in the sources: a saintly ancestor or relative was an exceptionally valuable status symbol. Æthelred, in making saints of the children of Edgar, surrounded himself with saintly siblings: a ruler with both a brother and a sister so firmly ensconced in the kingdom of heaven could not but find his own prestige on earth increased accordingly.265 Thus the recognition of Edward the Martyr as a saint owed much to the intervention of his (half) brother, King Æthelred and the cults of St Edward and St Edith had political as well as purely religious significance. The interest in the lives of St Æthelwold and St Dunstan in this period, coupled with an interest in the cult of royal saints demonstrates how political and religious policies were intermingled at this time and how every political decision had a religious facet; including the agreement with a mercenary Scandinavian army. The earliest life of the other great religious and political figure, St Oswald, dates from the early eleventh century but it is possible that it too is based in part on information recorded during this period of King Æthelred’s reign.

258

Darlington and McGurk, The Chronicle of John of Worcester, pp. 440 -1. 259 The evidence of a root and branch replacement of clerks by monks at this time, by Archbishop Ælfric, is in a late addition to ASC F. As it stands the passage has suspicious features but the establishment of a fully celibate cathedral chapter at Canterbury may well date from this time. 260 The Life of St Oswald says: ‘when twice two years had passed, and two added after that, so many signs of miracles were experienced at his tomb, that nobody could adequately describe them like they were.’ See Raine J. (ed.), Vita Oswaldi Archiepiscopi Eboracensis, in The Historians of the Church of York and its Archbishops, vol. I, Rolls Series, ed. J. Raine, London: Longman & Co., 1879, pp. 399-475 at p. 450. Twice two plus two is six and six years after Edward’s death brings us to the year 984. 261 S 899. Stenton says: ‘The charter is only known from the late and illcopied Shaftesbury Cartulary, but it has no suspicious features.’ Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 374, note 1. Sawyer, S. 899, quotes other comments, all suggesting that the charter is authentic. 262 On the instructions of the king. See Fell, C. Edward, King and Martyr, Menston: Scolar Press, 1971, pp. 12-13 and Keynes Diplomas, pp. 170-1 and note 66.

263

Raine, Vita Oswaldi, p. 452: qui innocenter erat occisus. Ridyard, S. J. The Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England: A Study of West Saxon and East Anglian Cults, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 164-5. 265 Ibid. p. 165. 264

37

The Reign of Æthelred II mercenary army, there is no attempt to explain this apparent rebellion. There may have been a dispute about money and provisions, although this seems unlikely whilst it was actually involved in a campaign. It is possible that an influx of new liðs from Scandinavia destabilised the army and its command structure, with new leaders arguing that looting rich English provinces was more profitable than looting the relatively poor ‘Welsh’ Vikings on behalf of King Æthelred. They may have judged that the English would not easily bring an army against them and in 997 this appears to have been the case.269 The here then:

Problems with the Mercenary Army When Olaf Tryggvason departed for Norway, he was accompanied by only five ships and the majority of the Scandinavian army remained in England with King Æthelred as its paymaster. Olaf was not the only leader to depart of course. Swein Forkbeard returned to Denmark at about the same time, and, no doubt, other ships crews returned to Scandinavia with the wealth they had accumulated. However, their return and the stories of their adventures and successes would have encouraged a further exodus of adventurers keen to seek their fortune in the west so, at this time, King Æthelred should have had little difficulty in maintaining the size of his mercenary force.

turned back round Land’s End to the southern side, and then turned into the mouth of the Tamar, and then went up until they reached Lydford, burning and slaying everything they came across, and burnt down Ordwulf’s monastery at Tavistock and took with them to their ships indescribable booty.270

Since the Æthelredian Exemplar does not set out to show Æthelred’s reign in a positive light, it provides no information about how the mercenary army was deployed until the year 997. The scant evidence available shows that it was based in the southwest, probably Devon, where it would have been settled on the land. During the campaigning season it would have been deployed in the western Channel, the Irish Sea and the Severn Estuary. According to II Æthelred, one of its tasks was to attack the king’s enemies and in particular the bases of Viking raiders who were troubling the coasts of Anglo-Saxon England. Drawing upon sources that are no longer extant, the Æthelredian Exemplar says that in 997 the here:

This record of events presents some problems of interpretation. It is probable that the here, in travelling up the River Tamar, was heading for the region where it had been settled as a mercenary army by King Æthelred. It follows that the ‘burning and slaying’ is unlikely to have been as indiscriminate as the author of the Æthelredian Exemplar would have us believe. By travelling up the Tamar, the here would indeed have reached Lydford. However, Tavistock is on a different river, although it would have been accessible to a here that had travelled up the Tamar. Geographically, King Æthelred and his court were far distant from events but they can hardly have failed to know what had happened. The destruction of a monastery that had been founded by the king’s uncle271 was an event that could hardly have gone unnoticed, hence its inclusion in a written record that was still available to the author of the annals in the Æthelredian Exemplar nearly twenty years later, in 1016.

went round Devon into the mouth of the Severn and ravaged there, both in Cornwall, in South Wales [Norðwealum] and in Devon.266 If the here was raiding Viking bases on the coasts of North Cornwall and South Wales, it would have been acting within the terms of King Æthelred’s treaty with the Scandinavian army concluded in 993/4. It is possible that its remit would have taken the here to the northern coasts of Devon and Somerset, also. However the next recorded action was not in that remit:

The Æthelredian Exemplar says that the next year, 998, matters got worse:

And then they occupied Watchet and wrought great misery, by burning and slaying.267

Here (in this year) the here again turned eastwards into the mouth of the Frome, and (from) there they went inland everywhere into Dorset as widely as they pleased; and the (English) fyrd was often assembled against them, but as soon as they were to have joined battle, a flight was always instigated by some means, and always they [the here] had the victory in the end. And then for another period they stayed in the

Watchet was an Anglo-Saxon burh that had developed as a town and is recorded as a mint for the first time during the reign of King Æthelred.268 Because the Æthelredian Exemplar does not admit to the existence of Æthelred’s 266

ASC CDE, s.a. 997. The Old English Norðwealum means the land north of the Severn Estuary occupied by the Celtic British; hence South Wales. 267 Ibid. 268 Hill D. ‘Gazetteer of Burghal Hidage sites’ in The Defence of Wessex: The Burghal Hidage and Anglo-Saxon Fortifications, ed. D. Hill and A. R. Rumble, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996, pp. 189-231 at pp. 223-4. Watchet had ceased to be an urban settlement by the time of the Domesday survey: Brooks, ‘The Administrative Background to the Burghal Hidage’ in The Defence of Wessex: The Burghal Hidage and Anglo-Saxon Fortifications, ed. D. Hill and A. R. Rumble, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996, pp. 128-150 at p. 138.

269

This is all conjecture. Watchet was vulnerable to attack by raiders not associated with the mercenary army. It had been ravaged in such a raid ten years earlier. I have followed the Æthelredian Exemplar’s version of events, and tried to explain them, since we have no other early record. 270 ASC CDE, s.a. 997. For Ordwulf’s foundation at Tavistock, see S. 838. 271 Ordulf was the brother of Queen Ælfthryth.

38

A King in his Prime: 991 – 1005 Isle of Wight272, and meanwhile they fed themselves from Hampshire273 and 274 Sussex.

mercenaries were still stationed in Devon in the year 1001, so the assumption must be that these mercenaries had accompanied Æthelred on his campaign in the year 1000. In this event, the raiding army that attacked Kent was a new force, quite separate from that which Æthelred was employing as a mercenary army in the west of the country.

This account begs many questions. It is undoubtedly biased and probably inaccurate. Version A of the AngloSaxon Chronicle, which is independent of the Æthelredian Exemplar, older, and has a special interest in Hampshire and neighbouring counties, makes no reference to attacks by a raiding army in 998. So any attacks on the south coast must have been of limited scope and may not have involved the mercenary here, which was based in Devon until 1001275 and remained there until 1002.

It is possible that the here, which attacked Kent, was made up mainly of liðs that had been forced to leave their native land because of the warlike activities of King Olaf Tryggvason and King Swein Forkbeard. Olaf Tryggvason, in particular, was driving his enemies off their estates and forcibly converting the ordinary people to Christianity. But, wherever this here may have come from, the activities of King Æthelred and his landfyrd and scipfyrd must have been sufficient to make it leave Kent and, as the Æthelredian Exemplar says, depart to Normandy. Certainly, the king could not possibly have left southern England and gone on a military expedition to the northwest in the following year if the threat from this here had not been removed.277

The events described by the Æthelredian Exemplar for the following year, 999, present further problems of interpretation: Here (in this year) the here came (yet) again around into the Thames and then went up along the Medway to Rochester. And then the Kentish fyrd came against it there, and then they joined battle vigorously. But woe, alas! They too readily submitted and fled; then the Danish (men) [Deniscan] had possession of the battlefield [place of slaughter]. And then they seized horses and rode wherever they pleased, and slaughtered and plundered almost all the West Kentish (people). Then the king decided with his witan that they should be opposed by a scypfyrd [naval force] and also by a landfyrd. But then, when the ships were ready, they were delayed from day to day, (which) oppressed the wretched people who were on the ships. And always, just as there should have been progress, so they was delay from one hour to the next, and always they let their enemies’ strength increase, and always they retreated inland and they [the here] continually followed; and then in the end it achieved nothing except the people’s toil, and the waste of money and the encouragement of their enemies.276

King Æthelred’s campaign in the year 1000 is one of the great enigmas of his reign. The Æthelredian Exemplar provides a brief account: Here in this year the king went into Cumberland and ravaged very nearly all of it; and his ships went out round Chester and should have come to join him, but they could not. Then they ravaged the Isle of Man.278 ‘Cumberland’ in those days extended north to include the region that we know as Strathclyde, so the annal is describing a major expedition in which the English fyrd travelled a considerable distance. King Æthelred is usually depicted in the Æthelredian Exemplar as a man who held himself aloof from military expeditions, but this major expedition was led by him. That his fyrd should ravage nearly all Cumberland and that his scipfyrd should ravage the Isle of Man suggests that he felt he had very good cause for harrying these regions, over which he claimed suzerainty in his royal titles. Yet the Æthelredian Exemplar gives no indication of a cause, nor does it explain how the king could harry so far to the north without the logistical support of a fleet, which it claims was unable to support him.

The difficulty with this account is that King Æthelred, with his fleet and army, set off on an expedition to Irish Sea locations in the following year. This would not have been possible if a hostile here was in Kent, having devastated the region in 999. The Æthelredian Exemplar avoids the issue by saying that, in 1000, ‘the here had gone to Richard’s kingdom that summer’ meaning Normandy. But the independent version A of the AngloSaxon Chronicle makes it evident that Scandinavian

In 1001, the year after the expedition to ‘Cumberland’, England was attacked by a sciphere. The Æthelredian Exemplar indicates that this here was the Scandinavian army returning from Normandy, but if so it had been reinforced by more Scandinavian liðs for it was now a very significant force that warranted a detailed account of its activities in the independent version A of the Anglo-

272

ASC D: ‘owiht lange’. ASC CE have ‘Wihtlande’ – ‘the Isle of Wight’. The words in ASC D appear to be a copying error. 273 ASC D: ‘þam tunscire’. ASC CE have ‘Hamtunscire’. 274 ASC CDE, s.a. 998. 275 ASC A, s.a 1001. 276 ASC CDE, s.a. 999.

277 Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 51-7, considers the problems of interpretation and the strategy from a Scandinavian viewpoint. 278 ASC CDE, s.a. 1000.

39

The Reign of Æthelred II Saxon Chronicle. Before describing its activities it is worth considering events in Scandinavia that may have instigated a major attack on England.

on the Isle of Wight. There the English agreed a truce with them. The Æthelredian Exemplar provides an interesting contrast with version A of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. It entirely ignores the great battle on the Hampshire, Sussex border in which the here suffered significant losses, and starts its account of the invasion with the here attacking England up the River Exe until it reached Pinhoe. There it destroyed ‘an immense army’ (‘ormæte fyrde’) drawn from Devon and Somerset. It then ravaged the land until it retired to the Isle of Wight and ‘no naval force nor land force dared go against the here.’280 So, by comparison with Anglo-Saxon Chronicle version A, the Æthelredian Exemplar’s truncated version of the events can be seen to be denigrating the efforts of the English. It is particularly unfortunate, therefore, that the independent version A of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle provides no further information about the Scandinavian invasions. It ceased to be a Winchester document and appears to have been transferred to Canterbury at about this time.

Whilst King Æthelred had been campaigning in the western British Isles his friend, King Olaf Tryggvason had taken a fleet from Norway into the Baltic. There he was opposed by a coalition of Danes, Swedes and some Norse exiles led by King Swein Forkbeard of Denmark. The manoeuvres of the two opposing forces culminated in the sea-battle of Svold. The Norse fleet was defeated and King Olaf Tryggvason was killed. The main political result of the battle was that King Swein Forkbeard achieved hegemony over most of Scandinavia and the western Baltic. His enemies were driven into exile and King Swein encouraged adventurers to seek their fortunes in the west so as to minimise disruption in Scandinavia. So it is no coincidence that England should have suffered a major invasion of Scandinavians in the year following the battle of Svold, or that there should be a series of similar invasions in subsequent years, all instigated by King Swein of Denmark.

From subsequent events it is possible to deduce that following the agreement of peace terms a geld was paid to the invading here and a large part of the here was then settled, or re-settled, in the southwest.281 So the here joined the loyal mercenaries in England and augmented Æthelred’s army, although, of course, some liðs would no doubt have taken the opportunity to return to Scandinavia with their loot and their share of the tribute money.

The invasion in the year 1001 is described in version A of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and also in the Æthelredian Exemplar and there are major differences between the accounts. The following account is based on version A. In 1001, a sciphere of up to 1500279 men attacked the south coast of England. Leaving about a third of their number to protect their ships, the here ravaged the countryside until they reached Dean – then known as Æþelingadene – near the Hampshire border in Sussex. The Hampshire fyrd had been summoned and encountered the enemy force there. The battle that followed was hard-fought and 81 Englishmen were killed and even more of the enemy, whom the annal refers to as Danish, were killed. The English losses included two ‘king’s high-reeves’, a thegn and other men of noble birth and eventually the fyrd retreated leaving the enemy here in control of the battlefield. Although victorious, the here had lost some 10% of their force in the battle and many more must have been wounded. They did not retreat to their ships, however, which suggests that they were threatened by an English force to the south. Instead, the here travelled west and met up with the mercenary army in Devon. There, they were befriended by some of the Scandinavians in King Æthelred’s mercenary army, who joined the here under the leadership of a Dane named Pallig. This was a great blow to King Æthelred since Pallig was a leader who had been close to him and who had been rewarded with lands, gold and silver. Reinforced in this way, the here was able to conduct a campaign in the west, causing much damage and taking much booty. At Pinhoe, they were met by an English fyrd, which had been gathered in haste by the local reeves. The here won a victory with comparative ease and killed many of the English, after which they continued their raiding until they came to the coast again and stationed themselves, in relative safety,

Changes in English Political Policy When Æthelred had been elected king in 978, as Edgar’s only surviving son, he was about ten years old and was too young to take an active part in warfare. Normally a boy of the warrior class might have been exposed to the risks of a campaign at about the age of twelve years old. However, Æthelred’ lack of male relatives meant that the chief councillors in the witan could not allow their king to take risks and we do not have evidence of King Æthelred leading his army personally until the years 984 and 988.282 The establishment of a mercenary army in 993/4 may have precluded the king from leading a fyrd in the last decade of the tenth century; and it is possible that Ælfric the homilist wrote in favour of a king delegating responsibility for warfare during this period in a fragmentary text known as Wyrdwriteras.283 However, in the year 1000 Æthelred was about 32 years old and had a large family. He had young sons and the succession seemed secure, so it is no surprise to find the king taking a lead in an extensive campaign, with both a fyrd and a scipfyrd, into the northwest and Irish Sea locations. The references to Pallig and the rich rewards he had received from King Æthelred in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, version A, are a clear indication that Æthelred was joined by his 280 The two versions of events for the year 1001 are compared and assessed in Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 57-62. 281 Ibid. 282 S.854, S.872, witness lists. A lack of evidence does not preclude him leading an army in other years, of course. 283 See Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 206-8 for observations on this.

279 For the numbers involved in this campaign, see Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, p. 59.

40

A King in his Prime: 991 – 1005 mercenary army for this campaign, which is the first occasion that his leadership of an army is referred to in the Æthelredian Exemplar.284 In those days ‘Cumberland’ meant the land that stretched north from the River Ribble up to and including Strathclyde, and King Æthelred’s campaign seems to have been the culmination of a political and economic strategy for English dominance of the west coast. By devastating the Isle of Man, Æthelred’s fleet was attacking a Norse stronghold and a staging post for the Norwegian traders and raiders who were journeying between northern Scotland and their Irish towns, such as Dublin. Through these actions, Æthelred was not only safeguarding English trade in the Irish Sea, he was ensuring that the kings of Dublin could have no hope of exerting their influence over Northumbria as they had done in the reign of every Anglo-Saxon king from the reign of Alfred up to and including the reign of King Eadred, Æthelred’s uncle.

young sister, Emma, came to England and married King Æthelred, who was then a widower aged about 34 with many children. This alliance between Normandy and England meant that the king’s enemies, including Viking raiders, could not easily find refuge on the other side of the Channel.285 The action that the king took next underlines the significance of this understanding: And in that year the king ordered (that) all the Danish [deniscan] men who were in England [Angelcynne] (should be) killed – on St Brice’s day – because the king became aware that they wanted to treacherously take his life, and next (kill) all his witan, and afterwards have this kingdom.286 The Æthelredian Exemplar described the here that invaded East Anglia in 991 as Danish [Deniscum mannum] and the here that invaded Kent in 999 as Danish [deniscan]. So when the Æthelredian Exemplar refers to ‘all the Danish [deniscan] men who were in England’, it is indicating that the king had ordered the massacre of men who constituted a here; in context, that means the king’s mercenary army. After part of the mercenary army had betrayed the king in 1001, it must have been difficult for Æthelred to trust it. But whether Æthelred was justified in his actions or whether the reasons for the attack on the Scandinavians were partly or wholly invented is difficult to judge. The mercenary army must have been billeted in the Devon area for a long time and its members would have been distributed over a large region with their wives and children. This made them vulnerable to a surprise attack. That there was a massacre is certain and one may estimate that over a hundred – possibly several hundred – men, women and children were killed.

Although he may have called out English forces for this expedition, Æthelred still considered that the use of his mercenary army was an important feature of his strategy. So he remained committed to the mercenary army remaining in Devon and he heaped great wealth, by way of reward and encouragement, upon leaders of the army such as Pallig. At this stage his policy seems to have been one of having a mixed force available, so he was moving away from being totally reliant upon Scandinavian mercenaries. The behaviour of Pallig in supporting the invading here in 1001 shook his faith in the continuing loyalty of his mercenaries and, although he seems to have reinstated them on their lands and given them peace money at the beginning of the year 1002, it soon became evident that Æthelred’s policy towards them was changing radically. There are indications of a general change in Æthelred’s political thinking at this time in the Æthelredian Exemplar annal for the year 1002. Ealdorman Leofsige was banished from the country. He was the ealdorman of Essex and had succeeded to that office after the death of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth. It is unclear what is family relationships were but, according to the Æthelredian Exemplar, it was he who negotiated a settlement with the here at the beginning of the year 1002. The Æthelredian Exemplar says that he killed the king’s high-reeve, Æfic, shortly after this. It is not known whether Leofsige fell out of favour with the king before or after he killed Æfic, but the king appears to have been unhappy about the nature of the settlement with the here. Whether or not the dispute, which led to the killing of Æfic, was a personal matter or whether Æfic was acting under the king’s orders at the time, it was an act that could not be ignored and Leofsige’s banishment removed an important influence from the king’s Witan. Another indication of a change in political direction was the conclusion of an agreement with the duke of Normandy whereby his

It has often been supposed that the English took the royal order as a justification for an attack on Scandinavian trading communities in English regions adjacent to the Danelaw, because, in a charter made in favour of St Frideswide’s monastery, Oxford, dated 7 December 1003, the king is made to say: I have restored the territories which belong to that monastery of Christ with the renewal of a new title-deed; and I will relate in a few words to all who look upon this document for what reason it was done. For it is fully agreed that to all dwelling in this country it will be well known that, since a decree was sent out by me with the counsel of my leading men and magnates, to the effect that all the Danes who had sprung up in this island, sprouting like cockle amongst the wheat, were to be destroyed by a most just 285 For the relationship between England and Normandy in the decade leading up to this agreement, see Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 55-6. 286 ASC CDE, s.a. 1002.

284 The chronicle annal is supported by charter S.892, witness list, indicating that the king had summoned an English fyrd.

41

The Reign of Æthelred II extermination, and this decree was to be put into effect even as far as death, those Danes who dwelt in the afore-mentioned town, striving to escape death, entered this sanctuary of Christ, having broken by force the doors and bolts, and resolved to make a refuge and defence for themselves therein against the people of the town and the suburbs; but when all the people in pursuit strove, forced by necessity, to drive them out, and could not, they set fire to the planks and burnt, as it seems, this church with its ornaments and its books. Afterwards with God’s aid, it was renewed by me and my subjects …287

in its protection. Scandinavian kings encouraged the loyalty of their leading subjects by making gifts to them: they were (gold) ring-givers, and the great lords would encourage their followers with similar gifts. King Æthelred also bound his followers to him with gifts. These gifts included gold and silver but, as the royal charters reveal, he often secured their loyalty with property rights as well. The other measure of wealth was silver coins. The English had a very sophisticated monetary system which was firmly based on the silver penny; gold did not feature in this system.289 The activities of the Scandinavian here, the support and payment of a mercenary army and the cost of raising the native scipfyrd and landfyrd tested the sophistication of the English monetary system at this time. Effectively, the king and his Witan had to make food and other supplies available on a massive scale from time to time and also they had to make large numbers of silver coins available for payments such as heregeld.

There are suspicious features about this charter, which is only extant in late copies, and it is possible that the incident described did not occur.288 It is unlikely that King Æthelred, who like his father, King Edgar, had been very sensitive to the feelings of the people of the Danelaw when framing his laws, would be so insensitive as to openly side with the Mercians against people from the Danelaw. Also, it is difficult to believe that this profoundly religious king would wholeheartedly support the destruction of a church and the murder of men seeking sanctuary there. However, the story is a useful reminder that distrust of the Scandinavians was widespread and that it extended to those who were involved in trade in English Mercia. It is evidence of tension between the provinces of England and that there was a belief that King Æthelred would align himself with a popular movement in the Mercian province, against men of the Danelaw trading in Mercia. This belief may date from the time when the king ordered the St Brice’s Day Massacre, but actions such as the destruction of the church of St Frideswide and the attack on a ‘Danish’ trading community in Oxford cannot have been intended when he gave the order, nor would they have been so readily condoned by the king. In this context, it is relevant to note that the Danelaw remained loyal to Æthelred and to West Saxon hegemony in England for more than a decade after these events.

Food and other supplies were needed for an English fyrd when it was on campaign and for a Scandinavian here when it had agreed a winter truce, so that it did not have to resort to raiding for provisions. It was not a practical proposition for the king to bring in such provisions from all over England, so the king raised taxes, paid in silver pennies, which were then used to purchase provisions locally, usually in Wessex. Because provisioning took place over a period of months, a cycle of taxation followed by purchases, then further tax collections followed by further purchases meant that the silver coins passed from hand to hand rapidly. This was a great encouragement to trade since there was a demand for goods and for coins and, although it was not practical for the king to arrange for taxes and ‘food rents’ to be paid to him in kind from every region in his realm, it was certainly a practical proposition for entrepreneurs to arrange the movement of cattle from peripheral regions into regions where there was great demand. It was no accident that there was a great interest in ‘vouching to warranty’ as prove of ownership and to act as a deterrent to cattle rustling at this time. Payment of heregeld for a winter truce290 or as payments to mercenary forces also created a demand for silver coins. These coins could be spent immediately to acquire goods, services and provisions or they might be saved as a store of value for future purchases. Because of the way in which the king’s Witan was manipulating the monetary system it contained a fiduciary element so that the purchasing power of a silver coin in England was greater than the purchasing power of the equivalent weight of silver. For this reason, Scandinavians hoarded silver coins. Some of the coins were taken back to Scandinavia

What the Massacre certainly illustrates is a major change of policy in that Æthelred and the Witan had decided that there should be no mercenary army in England in future. King Æthelred was to maintain this new policy for ten years, until the year 1012, despite changes in ministers and the problems of further Scandinavian invasions during the intervening years. Monetary and economic impact of Æthelred’s policies There were two measures of personal wealth at this time: gold and silver. Gold was much more prized and was made into rings and armbands so that the rich could wear and display their fortune, whilst taking a personal interest

289 The information about the coinage in this section is based on Appendix 3: Fiscal policy, below. 290 There has been much discussion about the value of such payments and whether the number of silver coins mentioned in the Æthelredian Exemplar’s annals can be relied upon as accurate. The cost of such payments and the other ancillary expenditure is explained in Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 14-22 and Figure 4.

287 Whitlock EHD, p. 545, No. 127, Whitelock’s translation. For the date of this charter, see Appendix 1: Chronological analysis. 288 See Appendix 1: Chronological analysis, ‘7 December 1003’.

42

A King in his Prime: 991 – 1005 by returning liðs for use in future trading expeditions. They were hidden as hoards for that purpose and sometimes were ‘lost’ when the owner died without revealing the whereabouts of his hoard. In England there was a constant demand for coins for taxation and trading purposes and so lost hoards were far less likely to occur. This is why so much of our knowledge of the English silver coinage at this time comes from foreign finds rather than from the discovery of hoards in England.

food-rents and taxes as well as maintaining confidence in the coinage. From time to time, the king would call in old dies and replace them with new dies. There was a twofold purpose in this. Moneyers had to pay for the dies, possibly as much as 240 pence per die, so this constituted a form of taxation which brought in extra revenue to the king. The other prime reason for changing dies periodically was to maintain the intrinsic value of the coinage. The overall aim of the government was to keep the premium as low as possible since the king accepted the coins as commutation of food rents, profits of justice and taxation payments, so it was to his advantage to maintain the highest possible weight of silver in the coinage. Examples of the heavier coins are rarer than lighter coins because it was profitable to melt them down and produce new coins when there was a lighter issue: this was particularly true after 1017 when King Cnut made a major devaluation of the English coinage, which made it profitable to bring old Æthelredian coins to the moneyers to be melted down. An exception to this general observation occurs when coins from the same die issue were made at different weights so that it was difficult for individuals to distinguish light coins and heavy coins. Variable weights in an issue occurred when there was a sudden need to increase the number of silver coins in issue. For instance in 1002 and 1007 there were substantial payments to Scandinavian armies: the AngloSaxon Chronicle says 24,000 pounds and 36,000 pounds respectively. It is likely, therefore, that the issue of coins, known as ‘Crux’, was affected by the need for an increase in the coinage in 1002. The first issue of Crux coins seems to have been made with a premium of only 16 pennies to the pound, following the precedent of the ‘Benediction Hand’ issue. However, the need to encourage silver to be brought to the moneyers in some considerable haste was met by ordering them to produce coins with a premium of 64 pence to the pound. Once the requirement for a massive increase in the coinage had been fulfilled, the government called in the ‘Crux’ dies and replaced them, probably with an issue known as ‘Intermediate Small Cross’. Since there were now more than enough coins in circulation in the country, this issue was made at a premium of only 8 pennies per pound of silver. Not surprisingly, we have few examples of these heavy coins.

The fiduciary element in the English silver coinage arose because 240 pennies represented a pound value, but the moneyers were instructed to make more than 240 pennies from a pound of silver. The excess number of coins was strictly controlled by the government and represented a ‘premium’ since the owner of the silver could pay his dues at fixed prices and thereby profit by the value of the excess pennies.291 It is possible to trace the changes in the premium in the English silver coinage and associate them with political events. Essentially, the king and his Witan had to increase the premium and give more coins for each pound of silver when there was an economic need to increase the number of coins in circulation. The increase in premium encouraged the import of silver and encouraged people to melt down silver plate. By contrast, when there was an excess of coins in the economy the king and his Witan were able to call in the old dies and make a new issue of coins at a very low premium. This slowed down the production of coins, as fewer pounds of silver were made available to the moneyers for changing into coins. In 993/4 the Scandinavian army had received large numbers of coins as heregeld before it settled down as a mercenary army. Because it was settled on the land, the king needed fewer coins to make purchases of provisions for the here and for his own fyrd,292 which was no longer required on active service. The Scandinavians would spend coins that they had hoarded from the heregeld. Because the mercenary here was spending the coins it had received in England, there was no shortage of coinage in the economy. This meant that King Æthelred was able to make further payments to the Scandinavian army without having to attract new silver into the process of coin production. Because of this Æthelred’s ministers were able to call in the dies and issue new dies for the coins that are known as ‘Benediction Hand’. This new issue of coins was made at a premium of only 16 pence to the pound. Naturally, production of coins slowed down as the incentive to bring silver to the mints was much reduced, but this was satisfactory to the king since there were already enough coins in circulation and the new issue was aimed at protecting the intrinsic value of his commuted

From an economic point of view, the monetary consequences of the early invasions were beneficial. Silver was changed into coins, there was a massive increase in internal and external trade293 and this encouraged the people to cut or burn trees and increase the land in use for arable farming or animal husbandry. Moneyers prospered because of the additional work and markets flourished so the overall consequences for the burhs and other towns were very beneficial. The population of towns must have increased and there would

291

See Appendix 3: Fiscal policy, below, for the evidence of there being 256 pennies to the pound of silver of which 16 pennies were kept by the moneyer to cover his costs and profit and 240 were given to the provider of the silver. The ‘premium’ was the number of coins made by the moneyer in excess of 256 to the pound. 292 Strictly speaking, members of an English fyrd were expected to bring their own provisions with them for a campaign. In practice, however, provisions must have been made available during the course of a campaign that lasted more than a few days.

293

By this is meant a large percentage increase on what would now be regarded as a very small economic base.

43

The Reign of Æthelred II have been an increase in the population as a whole consequent on these economic changes.

marriage settlement; an act that would not have pleased local people since there was a history of rivalry between them and the Normans over their respective ‘rights’ in the Channel. Since Emma had been queen for less than a year, it may seem unreasonable that her representative should be held solely responsible for the burh’s inability to withstand an attack.

Increased prosperity explains why Æthelred and his Witan remained confident throughout this period and why they were so easily able to afford to employ a mercenary army. It was Æthelred’s distrust of his mercenary army in 1002, not economic forces, which made him instigate the St Brice’s Day Massacre. Although there were many difficulties in the period 1002 to 1005 and Æthelred and his Witan continued to spend freely, they had cause to remain optimistic as the economy continued to improve – at least until climatic conditions brought about a famine during 1005.

Because the Æthelredian Exemplar does not admit to the existence of a mercenary army at this time, it does not inform us what happened to remnants of that army after the massacre in 1002. It is possible that some part of the army was able to maintain itself in England and that Swein’s force joined it. An attack on Exeter, in Devon, would be in keeping with such a scenario.

Here in this year (there) was the great famine throughout England [Angelcynn], such that nobody ever remembered one so severe.294

A comparison of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle annals for the year 1001 in ASC A and ASC CDE shows that the author of the Æthelredian Exemplar may have deliberately abbreviated and falsified his account of events. The annal in ASC CDE for the year 1003 appears to have been subjected to a similar amendment.295 So, the annal simply states that the here came into Wiltshire in the same year. Wiltshire is many miles distant from Exeter and it must be presumed that the here sailed up the Channel and stationed its ships on or near the Isle of Wight before going inland to Wiltshire.

An economy dependent upon agriculture and with relatively little access to external markets for food supplies must be vulnerable to famine. Two long hard winters stretching the winter supplies of fodder to extremes, or the failure of crops were sufficient to create famine-like conditions which would have occurred on a fairly regular basis. This famine was exceptional, although the annals do not record what brought it about. It would have brought hardship to all and starvation to some, although it is unlikely to have been equally hard in all parts of the country. These annals with their main focus of interest in the south are probably referring to famine conditions in Wessex and parts of Mercia, which must have set back the economy.

Then a great (English) fyrd was gathered from Wiltshire and from Hampshire, and they were going very resolutely towards the here. Then Ealdorman Ælfric should have led the fyrd, but he then repeated his old tricks, (so that) as soon as they were so close that each army [here296] looked on the other, then he feigned him sick, and began retching to vomit, and said that he was taken ill. And despite everything [swa þeah] betrayed the people that he ought to have led. As the saying goes: ‘When the commander is cowardly, then the whole here297 will be much hindered.’

Invasions by the king of Denmark repulsed The year 1002 appears to have been free of Scandinavian invasions. However, the St Brice’s Day Massacre in that year was bound to provoke a reaction. In Scandinavia many members of the warrior class must have suffered a loss of family or friends as a result of Æthelred’s order and they were bound to seek revenge. Following the victory over Olaf Tryggvason at Svold in the year 1000, Swein Forkbeard’s allies, the sons of Earl Hákon had recovered control of Norway. With a son (in-law) who was de facto ruler of Norway and a (step) son who was king of the Swedes, Swein Forkbeard had established hegemony over Scandinavia and he controlled all access from the Baltic to the west. Not only was there good cause to attack England, because of the St Brice’s Day Massacre, it was also sound political sense to divert the interests of young warriors away from Scandinavia. So it was that he directed an expedition against England in the year 1003. The here took Exeter by storm, capturing much booty and destroying the burh. The Æthelredian Exemplar blames the poor state of the burh’s defences on a Frank, named Hugh, who had been put in charge on behalf of Emma, the new queen of England. Presumably, Emma had been given control of Exeter as part of her 294

The English fyrd dispersed without offering battle, because the Æthelredian Exemplar continues immediately with the words: When Swein saw that they were not resolute, and that all (were) dispersed, then he led his here into Wilton, and they ravaged and burnt the burh, and then he proceeded to Salisbury, and from there went

295

Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, p. 63-6. The manuscript, Cotton Tiberius B iv, has ‘hero’; an obvious misspelling for ‘here’. In this phrase, the Æthelredian Exemplar does not distinguish between the invading here and the English fyrd. 297 An unexpected Old English saying since it is about a here not a fyrd. It indicates that the English could be disparaging about the prowess of invading armies. 296

ASC CDE s.a. 1005.

44

A King in his Prime: 991 – 1005 back to the sea to where he knew his seasteeds [yðhengestas] were.298

would never have got back to their ships; as they themselves said that they never met worse fighting [handplegan] in the land of the English than Ulfcetel brought to them.299

The Æthelredian Exemplar fails to explain adequately why a large English army dispersed without fighting an invading here, so allowing it to sack Wilton, attack Salisbury and retire without apparent hindrance to his ships. The ineffectiveness of one of the English leaders seems an insufficient explanation, particularly as Ealdorman Ælfric was not disgraced for his activities in 1003 no more than he had been in 992, although the Æthelredian Exemplar had also condemned him then for a failure to deal adequately with an invading here.

King Æthelred and his Witan had good cause to feel pleased at this outcome. They had dispensed with their mercenary army and were now entirely reliant upon the English fyrd to deal with military requirements. The king of Denmark had invaded England in successive years but had not forced negotiations and tribute payment on the English. Indeed, it was with some difficulty and much loss of life that King Swein had extricated himself from his battle with the East Anglian fyrd. The next year, 1005, he and his here retired back to Denmark and this must have been regarded by the English as a triumph.

Events in Scandinavia do not preclude King Swein of Denmark from leading a here in England during 1003, so the reference to him in the Æthelredian Exemplar should be accepted as valid evidence that he led the invasion force himself. Presumably, King Swein returned to Denmark at the end of the campaigning season in 1003, but it is uncertain whether the army returned with him or whether a large part of it over-wintered in England. There are no suggestions of a truce or payments to the here by King Æthelred and his Witan, and this is in line with their new aggressive policy.

and the (enemy) fleet returned from this country to Denmark [Denmearke] this year, and let little time elapse before it came back.300 However, there is no hint of triumph in the Æthelredian Exemplar. The writer states simply that the enemy fleet went back to Denmark but soon returned; he concentrates most attention on the problems of a great famine in England; a continuing assessment of a ‘doom and gloom’ nature, which was no doubt influenced by his knowledge of the disasters that were to befall King Æthelred and his country in the course of the next decade. However, the Æthelredian Exemplar does find time to praise the English commander, Ulfcetel; a man who was very much of the same political persuasion as Archbishop Wulfstan and who was to change his political allegiance during the years that followed in an identical manner to this archbishop, who was the sponsor of the Æthelredian Exemplar.

The following year, 1004, Swein returned, this time invading the east coast to lead an attack on Norwich, where he completely ravaged and burnt the burh. The Æthelredian Exemplar records the English response: Then Ulfcetel with the witan of East Anglia decided that it would be better to bargain for peace with the army before they did too much damage in that region, because they had come unexpectedly and at first he had not assembled his fyrd. Then, under cover of the truce which should have been between them, the here stole inland from the ships and directed their course to Thetford. When Ulfcetel perceived that, he sent (orders) that the ships were to be hewn into pieces, but those whom he intended for this failed him. And then he gathered his fyrd secretly, as quickly as he could. And the here came then to Thetford, within three weeks after they had earlier ravaged Norwich, and were inside one night, and then ravaged and burnt the burh. Then in the morning, when they wanted (to go) to their ships, Ulfcetel came with his loyal followers. And they resolutely joined battle there. And a great slaughter befell on either side. There, the leading men of the East Anglian people were slain, but if their full strength had been there, they (the here)

The important issues at the end of the year 1005 for a contemporary observer would have been that the here had retired without receiving a tribute payment and that the English had demonstrated their military competence. It seemed that King Æthelred was at the height of his powers at this time and that his new military strategy had been fully justified. He and his Witan were to continue this strategy for dealing with Scandinavian invading armies for another six years.

298

ASC CDE s.a. 1003. The use of a skaldic-style kenning, ‘yðhengestas’, to describe Swein’s ships is interesting; it suggests an original source influenced by Scandinavian tradition; c.f. Harvard the Halt who described ships as ‘sea-steeds’: Faulkes A. (trans.), Snorri Sturluson: Edda, London: J. M. Dent, 1987 (reissued 1995), p. 66.

299 300

45

ASC CDE s.a. 1004. ASC CDE s.a. 1005.

4 A King in Adversity: 1006 – 1013 making his first appearance in S 876 (dated 993).303

Changes in the King’s Council In the previous chapter it was seen how King Æthelred was changing policy, taking a proactive part in the government of the country, and leading his armies on campaign. He now had young sons and the succession was secure. English wealth had increased during his reign and the monetary system had been improved to an extent that made the king personally very rich, further increasing his influence and power. A generation of political leaders were coming to the fore that had known no other king but Æthelred who, by 1005, had reigned for over a quarter of a century.

However, Wulfric’s endowment of Burton Abbey represented a shift in political power in the north midlands from secular to church authority and increased the centralising power of the king and his Witan since they had the final say on appointments to the office of abbot and whether an abbot should be promoted to a bishopric. Wulfric says in his will: And I desire that the king be lord of the monastery which I built and of the estates which I bequeath to it to the glory of God and the honour of my lord and for my soul; and that Archbishop Ælfric and my brother Ælfhelm be protectors and friends and advocates of that foundation against any man born, not as their own possession, but [as belonging] to St. Benedict’s order.304

Changes in policy and political direction were accompanied by changes in the Witan. The normal process of death and succession to new office gradually brought about changes but some changes were more dramatic and included the downfall of another great Mercian family, which was headed at that time by Ealdorman Ælfhelm.

Whether the family was already feeling vulnerable to pressure from the king when Wulfric made his will is difficult to judge. The king’s subjects, however important, could only bequeath property with the king’s permission as Wulfric acknowledges in the final part of his will:

The family had vast estates in the north midlands and in the Danelaw and so enjoyed enormous political power and influence. Ælfhelm’s brother, Wulfric Spott, founded Burton Abbey. His will is extant, providing information about his property and his family connections, including the fact that he was related to Morcar and Sigeferth, the thegns of the five boroughs who became leading ministers of the king and who had substantial political power in the Danelaw.301 It was an old established Mercian family302 so in some respects it could be said that it was recovering authority in areas of the north that had been lost during the ninth century invasions. Keynes traces the developing influence of this family group:

And whoever perverts this, may God Almighty remove him from all God’s joy and from the communion of all Christians, unless it be my royal lord alone, and I believe him to be so good and so gracious that he will not himself do it, nor permit any other man to do so.305

the brothers Wulfric and Ælfhelm, and Wulfheah, son of Ælfhelm – appearing occasionally during the course of the 980s; they were accorded collective prominence by the end of the decade, for the document recording the decisions of the synod of London held in 988 x 90 (S 877) shows Ælfhelm, Wulfheah and Wulfric, Wulfrun’s son, at the head of the list of thegns present, and shortly afterwards Ælfhelm was promoted to the office of ealdorman,

Wulfric’s will dates from the period 1002 – 1004, but by the year 1006 the family had certainly fallen out of favour with the king to the extent that King Æthelred treated its leading members as criminals or traitors. The Æthelredian Exemplar for the year 1006 says: … and Wulfheah and Ufegeat were blinded and Ealdorman Ælfhelm killed.306

301 Whitelock, Wills, No. 17. Also Sawyer P. H. (ed.), Charters of Burton Abbey, Anglo-Saxon Charters, 2, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. 302 Wulfric and his brother, Ealdorman Ælfhelm, were the sons of the lady Wulfrun whose capture by the Danes at Tamworth was recorded in ASC D, s.a. 943.

303

Keynes, Diplomas, p. 189. Whitelock, EHD, pp. 541-3; Whitelock’s translation. Ibid. Whitelock’s translation. 306 ASC CDE s.a. 1006. 304 305

46

A King in Adversity: 1006 – 1013

4. Ealdorman Ælfhelm’s Family Connections Wulfrun _________________________________|_________________ | | | Wulfric Ealdorman Ælfthryth Spott Ælfhelm _______|_______ ____________|_________ | | | | | Daughter Ealdgyth m m Wulfheah Ufegeat Ælfgifu Morcar (1) Sigeferth m (2) King Edmund King Cnut Ironside _______|_______ | | Swein Harold King of King of Norway England According to John of Worcester, Wulfheah and Ufegeat were the sons of Ealdorman Ælfhelm.307 There is confirmation of John’s statement in the close relationship between Ælfhelm, Wulfheah and Ufegeat evidenced in the will of Wulfric Spott, Ealdorman Ælfhelm’s brother.308 The last royal charter witnessed by Wulfheah and Ealdorman Ælfhelm has been dated 1005309 so they were attending the king until shortly before their disgrace. Our sources do not explain why they were punished but the extreme nature of the punishment indicates that they had been involved in some violent activity that would have been accounted treachery by the king. Blinding was an extreme judicial punishment and the killing of the ealdorman was probably also judicial. In practice, it was rarely possible to bring about a formal trial for such important individuals; but convincing the king of their guilt was sufficient and the killer could then act with impunity.

his justification, Æthelred’s treatment of Wulfheah, Ufegeat and Ealdorman Ælfhelm further alienated the north. Their family was not totally destroyed by these events and members of it remained in the king’s favour, the most important of these being Morcar and Sigeferth. But, when King Æthelred was faced with a Danish invasion some seven years later, Morcar and Sigeferth were among the first to turn against him, encouraging the Danelaw to submit to King Swein Forkbeard and supplying him with men for an invasion of southern England. Another important minister was disgraced at this time. The Æthelredian Exemplar says that ‘Wulfgeat was deprived of all his honours and property’.311 Wulfgeat had been one of Æthelred’s councillors and had featured prominently in the witness lists of royal charters.312 He was associated with Ealdorman Ælfhelm and his family and so his disgrace may have been linked to the downfall of the ealdorman and his sons. Keynes says:

Although we do not know what crime was being punished, the charter dated December 1003 in favour of St Frideswide’s monastery, whatever its provenance,310 is symptomatic of an antipathy between the peoples of the Danelaw and English Mercia. It implies that the king was expected to sympathise with English Mercia, particularly as he was already falling under the influence of a man, Eadric, whom two years later he promoted to the office of ealdorman of Mercia. The process that was to alienate the north of England can be traced back to events associated with the St Brice’s Day massacre. Whatever

The subscriptions of Wulfgeat commence in 986, though he occurs without particular associations and without prominence until 993; from 993 onwards he is associated consistently with Wulfric and Wulfheah, and though his origins appear to have been different it seems therefore that he developed a particular relationship with these two.313

307

Darlington and McGurk, Chronicle of John of Worcester, pp. 458-9. S. 1536. Ælfhelm and Wulfheah share a bequest and the wording of further bequests links Wulfheah and Ufegeat. 309 S. 912. See also, Keynes, Diplomas, p. 210. 310 This charter is discussed in the previous chapter.. 308

311

ASC CDE s.a. 1006. Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 192-3. 313 Ibid. 312

47

The Reign of Æthelred II Wulfric was the brother and Wulfheah the son of Ealdorman Ælfhelm. Ealdormen feature together and before the ministers in the witness lists – hence Ælfhelm’s name is not close to that of Wulfgeat. Like Wulfheah and Ealdorman Ælfhelm, Wulfgeat also witnessed royal charters until 1005.314 John of Worcester says that King Æthelred had esteemed (dilexerat) Wulfgeat more than almost all others; John says that he was stripped of his possessions and of every dignity because of the unjust judgements and arrogant deeds he had perpetrated.315 It is uncertain where John obtained this additional information though he may have assumed the reasons for Wulfgeat’s fall from grace from a tradition of disloyalty to the king and forfeiture of possessions that is referred to in two nearly contemporary charters.316 Whatever the reason, Wulfgeat’s disgrace and departure were part of a significant change in the royal council.

account is often quoted, the manner of Ealdorman Ælfhelm’s death and the degree of the king’s personal involvement are unknown.319 In fact, the Æthelredian Exemplar does not mention Eadric until the following year when the annal for 1007 reads: In this year Eadric was appointed ealdorman over the kingdom of the Mercians.320 Eadric’s subscriptions to charters as a witness commenced in 997 and he and his family grew in influence over the following decade. He could not easily have become ealdorman of Mercia in the face of opposition from the powerful Mercian family of Ealdorman Ælfhelm, so the ealdorman’s death and the disgrace of a large part of his family were a great benefit to Eadric. The author of the Life of Edmund Ironside was probably well aware of this background when he levelled his accusation against Eadric but, since it was made some fifty years after the event and there is no evidence of an earlier source, the accusation must be treated as tenuous. The Chronicle of John of Worcester provides information about Eadric’s family, some of which is also from an unknown source:

A loss of political power by the family of Ealdorman Ælfhelm was balanced at that time by the rise to prominence of a family group led by a man named Eadric. In a later age this Eadric was blamed for almost single-handedly bringing about the decline of the AngloSaxon monarchy. For instance, John of Worcester blamed him for the death of Ealdorman Ælfhelm:

The king made … Eadric … (son of Æthelric that is Leofwine), ealdorman of the Mercians. He was indeed a man of low birth but his tongue had won for him riches and rank; ready of wit, smooth of speech, he surpassed all men of that time, both in malice and treachery and in arrogance and cruelty. His brothers were Brihtric, Ælfric, Goda, Æthelwine, Æthelweard, and Æthelmær, father of Wulfnoth, father of Godwine, ealdorman of the West Saxons.321

The crafty and treacherous Eadric Streona, plotting to deceive the noble ealdorman Ælfhelm, prepared a great feast for him at Shrewsbury at which, when he came as a guest, Eadric greeted him as if he were an intimate friend. But on the third or fourth day of the feast, when an ambush had been prepared, he took him with him into the wood to hunt. When all were busy with the hunt, one Godwine Porthund (which means the town dog), the Shrewsbury butcher, whom Eadric had dazzled before with great gifts and many promises that he might perpetrate the crime, suddenly leapt out from the ambush, and execrably slew the ealdorman Ælfhelm. After a short space of time his sons, Wulfheah and Ufegeat, were blinded, at King Æthelred’s command, at Cookham, where he himself was then staying.317

This passage illustrates some of the difficulties in using John of Worcester’s Chronicle. That the king made Eadric ealdorman of Mercia is a fact that John would have found in his copies of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.322 His assessment of Eadric’s character is recognised by John’s editor as a passage from the writings of Osbern, 323 who was writing in the late eleventh century and who cannot be treated as an impartial witness in this instance. John’s reference to the names of Eadric’s father and his brothers is from an unknown source, possibly from documents associated with the creation of the

This passage appears to have been taken from a Life of Edmund Ironside, which is no longer extant except for quotations in John of Worcester’s Chronicle. It was created in the mid eleventh century to promote the claim of Edmund Ironside’s son to be king of England and its bitter attacks on Eadric, though understandable,318 are unlikely to be soundly based. So, although the above

319 I discussed the existence of this Life of Edmund Ironside in a paper read at the Leeds International Medieval Conference in 2000 entitled ‘Sources for the life of King Edmund Ironside’. I also referred to it in a paper entitled: ‘Promoting Royal Authority in Anglo-Saxon England: The Making of Edmund ‘Ironside’’ which I read to the Manchester Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies in 2006. Whitelock, EHD, pp. 218, note 2 suggests a ‘lost saga about Eadric Streona’; since we only have fragments we can only guess at its original title but Edmund is certainly the hero of the story and Eadric the treacherous villain. 320 ASC CDE s.a. 1007. 321 Translation from Darlington and McGurk, Chronicle of John of Worcester, pp. 460-1. 322 John had ASC D and an earlier version of ASC C for this period, both of which contained the relevant annal. 323 Darlington and McGurk, Chronicle of John of Worcester, p. 460, note 3.

314

Keynes, Diplomas, p. 210. Darlington and McGurk, Chronicle of John of Worcester, pp. 456-7. Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 210-11. The charters are S. 918 (dated 1008, but see Keynes: Diplomas. p. 183, n. 110) and S. 934 (dated 1015). 317 Translation from Darlington and McGurk, Chronicle of John of Worcester, pp. 456-9. 318 Eadric opposed Edmund’s claim the throne. 315 316

48

A King in Adversity: 1006 – 1013 Æthelredian Exemplar, which were still at Worcester when John was writing. There is support for some of this family information in contemporary charters,324 and Eadric’s brother, Brihtric, features in the Æthelredian Exemplar annal for the year 1009.325 The association of Eadric, via a brother named Æthelmær, with the great Earl Godwine is a particularly interesting feature of this passage, suggesting access to a late source that was biased against Godwine and his family, since Eadric was such an unpopular figure in English and Anglo-Norman writings; but it is unlikely to be true.326

The Great Invasion King Swein Forkbeard had returned to Denmark in 1005. However, the factors that encouraged him to lead Scandinavian liðs to England still existed. The difficulties occasioned by English resistance in 1004 may have been discouraging but England remained an easier target for invasion than Continental countries.332 There were still plenty of warriors with ships in Scandinavia and to avoid trouble at home it remained wise policy for Swein to encourage them to adventure abroad, although he did not lead another invasion force himself for some eight years. Instead, he chose a man whom he could trust, possibly a relative through marriage, named Tostig333 to lead a new invasion of England. A fleet was gathered in ports controlled by Swein, and members of the most important families in Denmark, including Hemingr StrutHaraldsson and Eglaf Thorgilsson, were encouraged to join Tostig. Many other leaders with their liðs joined the expedition so that when it arrived in England the Æthelredian Exemplar referred to it as ‘the great fleet’:

There were other important changes in the king’s council in 1005/6. The king’s uncle, Ealdorman Ordulf retired from public life and probably went to live in the monastery he had founded at Tavistock.327 ‘The king’s kinsman, Æthelmær may have entered his monastery at Eynsham at about the same time.328 There were also changes in the leadership of the Church. An annal for 1006 records: In this year Archbishop Ælfric died and Bishop Ælfheah succeeded him to the archiepiscopal see.329

Then after midsummer the great fleet [se micla flota] came to Sandwich, and did just as they were accustomed;334 ravaged, burnt and slew as they went. Then the king commanded the whole nation [þeodscipe] from Wessex and Mercia to be called out, and they remained out then the whole (of the) harvest-time on military service [fyrdinge] against the here. But it signified no more than it very often did before; because for all this the here went just where it wanted. And the military service [fyrding] caused the native people every sort of affliction, (so) that both the native army [inhere] and the foreign army [uthere] were good for nothing to them.335

Archbishop Ælfric had held office for ten years and had been an instigator of reform. According to one version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle he was responsible for the replacement of canons with monks in the Canterbury chapter.330 Archbishop Ælfric died on 16 November 1005.331 When Ælfheah succeeded to the archbishopric he was replaced as bishop of Winchester by Abbot Cenwulf of Peterborough, whose death is recorded in the annal for 1006, so he can only have been bishop for a few months. In a late addition to the exemplar of ASC E it is noted that Bishop Brihtwold succeeded to the bishopric of Wiltshire, this is a reference to Bishop Beorhtweald, who was bishop of Ramsbury from 1005 to 1045. The sum of these changes, some fortuitous, some forced, amounted to a major political upheaval and although the Æthelredian Exemplar plays down the king’s involvement in political decisions it is certain that he was involved directly and may have instigated the forced changes.

The Æthelredian Exemplar is disparaging about English resistance to this invasion and uses irony - inhere contrasting with uthere – to imply that the English fyrd was as inimical and as harmful as the invaders. It is likely that the English fyrd, drawn as it was from a wide area in Wessex and Mercia, caused local difficulties as it foraged for food; so, for practical purposes, villagers would have been equally worried about the presence and requirements of men from either army. The Æthelredian Exemplar mentions no skirmishes, although some must have occurred. It suggests that the English fyrd was ineffective, although there is no record of a town being taken during this autumn campaign by the here. This restriction on looting opportunities must have frustrated

324

Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 212-13. ASC CDE s.a. 1009. 326 John says that Earl Godwine was the son of Wulfnoth and grandson of Æthelmær. But there is evidence in the will of the Ætheling Æthelstan (S. 1503) that Wulfnoth Cild was the father of Earl Godwine. The events recorded in ASC CDE, s.a. 1009, described later in this chapter, make it most unlikely that Wulfnoth Cild was the nephew of Eadric and his brother Brihtric. 327 Keynes, Diplomas, p. 209. 328 Ibid. 329 ASC CDE s.a. 1006. 330 ASC F, s.a. 995. 331 The ASC CDE 1006 annal covers a period commencing September 1005, so it aligns with this November 1005 date. ASC A, which has an end-December caput anni, agrees, recording Ælfric’s death s.a. 1005 and Ælfheah’s consecration as archbishop s.a. 1006. 325

332

Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 23-30. Ibid. pp. 73-4. 334 I have followed Cubbin G. P. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a collaborative edition, Volume 6: MS D, a semi-diplomatic edition with introduction and indices, Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1996, p. 52-3, for my interpretation of the manuscript, save that the word ‘wæron’ is in the manuscript, which I have seen in the British Library, not omitted as indicated by Cubbin. 335 ASC CDE s.a. 1006. 333

49

The Reign of Æthelred II the Scandinavian here, as indeed did an English decision not to negotiate a winter truce.

The here returned south by a direct route, rather than following the Thames. By this means it may have hoped to avoid opposition but, if so, it was mistaken because an English fyrd had been gathered to obstruct the passage of the here over the River Kennet, which lay between it and the direct route back to the Isle of Wight.

Then winter approached, and the (English) fyrd journeyed home, and the here then came after Martinmas to its sanctuary, the Isle of Wight, and from there procured for themselves everywhere whatever they wanted.336

Then the (English) fyrd was assembled at the Kennet [æt Cynestan], and they joined battle there, and soon after that were put to flight, and afterwards (the here) carried their booty [herehyðe] to the sea. There might the people of Winchester see the here, proud and undaunted, as they went by their gate to the sea, (having) fetched themselves food and treasures from more than 50 miles from the sea.338

The Isle of Wight is described as the sanctuary [fryðstole] of the here as indeed it was and continued to be for a long time. There, Scandinavian invaders could enjoy defensive positions and protect their ships, relatively safe from English attack. The English had refused to negotiate a winter truce and presumably thought that, apart from local raiding for supplies, the here would not undertake any warlike activities during the winter season. The king was sufficiently confident of this to leave Wessex and go to Shropshire for the winter season. It was of course essential to allow the English fyrd to return home for the winter season. It was certain, however, that the here would remain as a problem in the following spring and that some plan would have to be devised to deal with it.

Winchester was one of the largest centres of population in England, numbering over 5,000 people.339 Presumably the armed forces from Winchester had been represented at the abortive defence of the River Kennet, hence there was no further attempt by people of Winchester to oppose the passage of the here as it returned to the sea and its ships.

The Æthelredian Exemplar makes no reference to such a plan. It does, however, describe a winter campaign by the here that surprised the English, partly because they had not expected a campaign in the winter but more especially because the here went on a journey that took it over fifty miles from the sea and the safety of its ships. A large force of Scandinavians left the Isle of Wight before Christmas and advanced north through Hampshire into Berkshire, avoiding centres of population until it approached Reading. On the way it attacked, looted and burnt homesteads and villages, the flames from which were likened to beacons marking the progress of the here.

Having accomplished this successful raid, the here remained safely on the Isle of Wight for the remainder of the winter season. The problem of how to deal with these Scandinavian invaders remained for the English to resolve. According to the Æthelredian Exemplar the here’s winter campaign and the sack of Wallingford induced a state of panic in the English: Then (there) arose so great a terror of the here, that nobody could either think or devise how they should be got out of the country, or (how) to protect this country from them.340

It seems that the here turned away from Reading and followed the River Thames north towards Wallingford, an important centre of population with a burh which controlled the passage over the river.337 The Æthelredian Exemplar says that the here ‘burnt all Wallingford’, indicating that the here stormed and burnt the burh; a very significant event. At this time buildings were made of wood and much of the palisade defending the burh would also have been made of wood, so, once captured, there would have been no difficulty in burning it. It is likely that the advance of the here was as much a surprise to the local population as it was to the king and the burh may not been properly manned and adequately defended.

The winter raid deep into Wessex and the sack of the burgh at Wallingford was a demonstration of the size and power of the great army but, in itself, the raid hardly justifies the panic described in this passage and, as will be seen in the next section, the Æthelredian Exemplar is evasive about what occurred during the following eighteen months. However, it does say that the immediate response of the king and his witan to this raid was to negotiate a truce with the here. Under the terms of the truce, the English were to make a payment of tribute and supply the here with food and other provisions. The provisioning requirement was so onerous that the Æthelredian Exemplar comments that food was found for them throughout England; another indication of the size of this here, which remained safely ensconced on the Isle of Wight.

336 Ibid. Martinmas is 11 November: Cheney C. R. (ed.), Handbook of Dates for Students of English History, London: Royal Historical Society, 1978, p. 54. There is a new edition of this book, revised by M. Jones, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. The Æthelredian Exemplar switches caput anni, year commencement, from Indiction, (September), to Annunciation, Florentine convention, (25 March), so the annal year 1006 covers the period September 1005 to March 1007. See Appendix 1: Chronological analysis, note 1. 337 For Wallingford and its strategic importance, see Hill D and A. R. Rumble (eds), The Defence of Wessex: The Burghal Hidage and AngloSaxon Fortifications, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996, pp. 219-21.

338

ASC CDE s.a. 1006. See Darby, Domesday England, p. 303. Some estimates suggest a population of 6000 – 8000 at the time of the Domesday survey but Darby says ‘this [number] seems large’. 340 ASC CDE s.a. 1006. 339

50

A King in Adversity: 1006 – 1013 policy of being self-sufficient and dispensing with mercenaries, this would be in line with the preparations for war described by the Æthelredian Exemplar in its annal for the year 1008. Unfortunately, the Æthelredian Exemplar remains silent about the activities of the here during this period.

Missing Annals After a detailed account of the great invasion of 1006 and the here’s winter campaign, the Æthelredian Exemplar says very little about the following two years. Concerning the Scandinavian invaders, for the year 1007, it says: Here, in this year, the tribute was paid to the enemy here; that was 36,000 pounds.341

Some inkling of what was happening can be gleaned from a record of legislative decisions made at a royal council held in the year 1008,344 at Enham. Our knowledge of the legislative discussions at this council is derived from law codes transmitted in the highly individualistic style of Archbishop Wulfstan of York. The legislation dated to the year 1008 is in a law code, known as V Æthelred. There are three extant early copies of V Æthelred345 one of which has been annotated in a hand that is believed to be that of the archbishop. The law code VI Æthelred probably derives from the same legislative council and the fragment known as X Æthelred also refers to legislation ‘at Enham’. The archbishop’s style is a mixture of new legislation, or reinforcement of legislation, with homiletic commentary on legislation. The archbishop had the legislation recorded in Old English and it is meant to be read out to an assembly; not studied like modern statute law. Much of the Enham code concerns the Church and the duty of the people towards the Church. Since God was believed to intervene directly in the world’s affairs, and the Scandinavian invasion would have been regarded by many as divine punishment for the sins of the English, it is understandable that the law code should concentrate on Church matters with a conscious intention of placating God. It includes the following clause:

The annal for 1007 adds that Eadric was made ealdorman of the Mercians and that Archbishop Ælfheah went to Rome for his pallium, official recognition of his office by the Pope. For the year 1008, the Æthelredian Exemplar says: In this year the king ordered that ships should be built unremittingly over all England, that is three hundred hides should provide a ship plus a helmet and corselet for every ten hides, and ten hundred hides should provide a large ship plus a helmet and corselet for every eight hides. 342 The ships mentioned in this annal, which included some very large ships, were not ready until the year 1009. It is apparent that most of the great army must have stayed in England throughout this period, yet the Æthelredian Exemplar makes no reference to its activities during the period from 1007 to part way through the annal for 1009. A new invasion force came to England in 1009 and was joined by the great army, which was already in England, information that the Æthelredian Exemplar omits from its account of events.343

But the law of God shall henceforth be zealously cherished both in word and in deed; then forthwith God will have mercy upon this nation.346

The Æthelredian Exemplar says that an enormous sum of money was paid to the Scandinavian here during the year 1007. Payment must have been made over a period of several weeks, possibly months, since time had to be allowed for collecting silver, minting the silver into coins and then transporting the coins from every region of the country. During this period, the here was given provisions, itself a logistically demanding and costly task. Negotiations had taken place to arrange the winter truce and negotiations must have continued to deal with questions about provisioning and when and how the tribute was to be paid. These negotiations could have been more wide-ranging but whether the English considered making peace with the here and paying it as a mercenary force is not known. If, however, King Æthelred and his advisers continued to pursue their

There are also some clauses in this law code dealing with secular matters, which shed some light on the English response to the Scandinavian threat: And the promotion of public security and the improvement of the coinage in every part of the country, and the repairing of fortresses and of bridges throughout the country on every side, and also the duties of military service shall always be diligently attended to, whenever the need arises, in accordance with the orders given.

341

ASC CDE s.a. 1007. ASC E has ‘30,000 pounds’, but the agreement of ASC C with D proves that this is a copying error in ASC E or in its exemplar. 342 ASC CDE s.a. 1008. See Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, Appendix 2, pp. 161-7 for a reconstruction of this annal. Thus, a ‘ship’ had helmets and corselets for 30 men and a ‘large ship’ had helmets and corselets for 125 men. 343 Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 76-7, examines the evidence for the activities of the here and explains the invasions from a Scandinavian viewpoint.

344

The year, 1008, is in the heading to V Æthelred in Cotton Nero Ai, folio 89: Liebermann, Gesetze, Vol. I, p. 236. 345 Cotton Nero Ai, folio 89; Cotton Nero Ai, folio 116; Cambridge Corpus Christi College 201, p. 48: see Liebermann, Gesetze, Vol. I, pp. 236-47. 346 V Æthelred, c. 26: translation from Robertson, Laws, pp. 86-7. There is agreement between the three extant manuscripts: Liebermann, Gesetze, Vol. I, pp. 242-3.

51

The Reign of Æthelred II And the fitting out of ships as diligently as possible, so that in every year they may all be equipped soon after Easter.347

that the English tactics were wrong and the activities of the English fyrd were positively harmful to the English people; but that cannot have been the common perception in 1006.

The reference to the coinage would have been prompted by the vast number of coins required to pay the tribute. There is reference to military preparations, including making ready the burhs to withstand attack and the bridges to improve communications and enable English fyrds to move easily about the country. The requirement that ships should be made ready immediately after Easter is particularly interesting when read in conjunction with the requirement to build a great fleet of ships during the year 1008 ready for use in 1009, which is to be found in the Æthelredian Exemplar annal quoted above. There are other clauses that have a military significance, including:

The Church was taxed heavily to help pay for the defence of England and also for the payments of the geld or tribute. Archbishop Wulfstan and other church leaders gave active support to the king in his council and the law code, V Æthelred, commanded the people to pray for success in the war against the invaders. There is a hiatus in our knowledge of events during the years 1007 and 1008, but it seems likely that the Scandinavian here was augmented by further liðs sailing from Scandinavian ports. Events then followed a pattern similar to that of the invasion of 991-3; following a truce with the Scandinavian here, tribute was paid but the English also made preparations to rid themselves of their enemies and a great naval force was prepared during 1008. The annal for 1009 commences:

And if anyone deserts an army which is under the personal command of the king, it shall be at the risk of (losing) his life or his wergeld.348

Here in this year, the ships, which we mentioned just before, were ready and, from what books tell us, there were more of them than had ever been before in the land of the English in any king’s time. And then they were all brought together to Sandwich, and there should remain and defend this country from any invading here.350

The code concludes: And let us loyally support one royal lord, and all of us together defend our lives and our country, to the best of our ability, and from our inmost heart pray to God Almighty for help.349 It is evident from this legislation that King Æthelred was in the habit of leading his armies on campaigns. The prayer, which concludes this law code, indicates that the English had been hard pressed but does not suggest that Archbishop Wulfstan despaired of success in the wars against the invading Scandinavians. The English must have had high expectations of the fleet, which was being prepared to attack the Scandinavian here in the following year.

The phrase ‘and there should remain and defend this country from any invading here’ could be interpreted as meaning that there was no specific threat to England and that the fleet was intended to remain at Sandwich to deal with any future invasion. It is possible that the writer of the annal would have been pleased to give this impression. However, there are significant logistical problems that make this interpretation unacceptable. It was quite feasible for an English king to maintain a fleet to defend the Channel approaches to the country. King Edward the Confessor had such a fleet in the mid eleventh century and it is possible that Æthelred’s father, King Edgar, had a similar fleet. The law code, V Æthelred, shows that King Æthelred himself envisaged maintaining a fleet on an annual basis at about this time.351 Danish kings had a similar facility in the eleventh century. However, there is a significant difference between a small fleet maintained for coastguard duties and the enormous fleet that was gathered together at the beginning of 1009, which must have numbered over 100 ships. Such a fleet required manning and supplying with provisions on an impressive scale, and this must have limited the time the fleet was available. So it is certain that the fleet was brought together for a specific campaign. It was gathered at Sandwich from where it would have been intended that it should proceed in a westerly direction down the Channel to threaten the here based on the Isle of Wight.352 The king, who must have

The English Fleet There can be little doubt that Æthelred and his ministers underestimated the great army that invaded in 1006. In the years 1003 to 1005 the English had dealt with invasions led by the king of Denmark. The English had refused to negotiate truces and pay tribute and there had been a battle that came near to being a disaster for the invaders. Subsequently, the Danish king had retired from England with the remnant of his army. In such circumstances it is not surprising that the English followed a similar pattern when dealing with the invasion led by Tostig in 1006. The invaders were opposed although there is no record of a major battle. An annalist, writing ten years after the events and writing with knowledge of the disasters that were to ensue, declared 347

V Æthelred, cc. 26.1 and 27, translation from Robertson, Laws, pp. 86-7. The phrase about ‘bridges’ is omitted from Cotton Nero Ai, folio 89, but is in the other two manuscripts and in VI Æthelred, c. 32.3. 348 V Æthelred, c. 28, translation from Robertson, Laws, pp. 86-7. Cotton Nero Ai, folio 89 inserts ‘all his property’ instead of ‘wergeld’. 349 V Æthelred, c. 35, translation from Robertson, Laws, pp. 90-1.

350

ASC CDE s.a. 1009. V Æthelred, c. 27. 352 Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, 77-81. 351

52

A King in Adversity: 1006 – 1013 pursuit of Wulfnoth.357 Brihtric’s strategy might have been successful had it not been for the powerful storm, which drove the English fleet ashore, almost certainly causing great destruction and loss of life. The ships that were not completely lost were probably looted by the local population, since it was common practice to loot shipwrecked vessels.358 The Æthelredian Exemplar says that Wulfnoth had a hand in the destruction of the ships that had been cast up on the shore: ‘and at once Wulfnoth came and burnt up the ships.’359

been immensely proud to see such a powerful fleet, was at Sandwich with the archbishops and leading ministers and there is charter evidence that he was attended by the elder æthelings, Æthelstan, Edmund and Eadred.353 Unfortunately, according to the Æthelredian Exemplar, there was dissention amongst the king’s ministers: Brihtric, Ealdorman Eadric’s brother, accused Wulfnoth Cild, the South Saxon, to the king, and then he (Wulfnoth) went away and then enticed ships to him until he had twenty, and then he ravaged everywhere along the south coast, as well as bringing about (great) misery.354

The significant feature of the story is that the great English fleet was destroyed as a result of an unexpected storm of exceptional ferocity and Wulfnoth’s part in the story would not have altered this outcome very much. There can be no doubt that the destruction of the great English fleet, and the consequent loss of life, was a national disaster. The Æthelredian Exemplar says:

This is a remarkable story. The word cild has connotations that, in context, mean that it should be translated as ‘a youth of gentle birth’. That he was able to lead away twenty ships is a demonstration of Wulfnoth’s importance. He was of noble birth, possibly even related to the royal family since this Wulfnoth may be the same man who, in 1015, was mentioned in the will of King Æthelred’s son, the Ætheling Æthelstan, and he may also be identified as the father of Earl Godwine. Wulfnoth’s defection must indeed have ‘brought about great misery’. It also created a problem for the king and his ministers.

When this became known to the other ships, where the king was, how the others had fared, it was as if all was in confusion, and the king took himself home, and the ealdormen and the chief councillors [heahwitan]; and they abandoned the ships thus lightly. And then the people, who were on the ships, sailed the ships back to London. And (they) allowed the toil of the ships to take place thus lightly; and there was no victory and that in which all the English people had trusted was no better (than this).360

The Scandinavian here had a base on the Isle of Wight. It had received tribute payments and supplies from the English and was in no hurry to move. King Æthelred did not want, at this time, to revert to his previous policy of employing the Scandinavian here as a mercenary army, so an enormous English fleet had been created and gathered at Sandwich with the intention of sailing it along the south coast and forcing the Scandinavian here to depart.355 Faced with the problem of Wulfnoth’s defection it was decided to pursue him, defeat him and capture the twenty ships that had defected from the royal fleet. Thereafter, the English fleet could continue along the south coast to deal with the original objective, the Scandinavian here.

The great disappointment of the nation is fairly reflected in this passage in the annal. Essentially the disaster was caused by an unprecedented storm, but the writer of the annal reveals that there was treachery within the English ranks and more than a hint of incompetence. That the destruction of the greater part of the great English fleet should throw the king and his councillors into a state of confusion is not surprising. The remaining ships could not have been sufficient for the purpose of driving away the Scandinavian here and so they were sent to London from where they could take up their normal trading duties in coastal waters and rivers. However, there can be no doubt that the writer of the annal is biased and intends to show matters in a poor light. In his next passage he indicates that the immense raiding army immediately raided southeast England after the disaster to the English fleet, though there is likely to have been a hiatus of several months.361 He wrote:

Then the aforementioned Brihtric took with him eighty ships and thought that he should make good his boast that he would capture Wulfnoth alive or dead. However, when they were on their way, there came against them a wind such as no one could remembered its like, and then the ships were completely broken and shattered and thrown up onto the land.356 There is charter evidence that Brihtric was with the king at this time, but that his brother, Ealdorman Eadric, may not have joined the king until after the fleet had sailed in

When this ship muster [scipfyrd] was thus ended, then, immediately after Lammas [1

353

357

S.921 and S.922. ASC CDE s.a. 1009. 355 The English strategy and the events leading up to the destruction of the English fleet are explained in Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 76-82. 356 ASC CDE s.a. 1009.

S.921 and S.922. See below, for a reaction to this in the law code VI Æthelred. 359 ASC CDE s.a. 1009. 360 ASC CDE s.a. 1009. 361 The English fleet was prepared for Easter, according to the law code, V Æthelred. Lammas, when the here came to Sandwich, is 1 August.

354

358

53

The Reign of Æthelred II August] the immense here362 came to Sandwich, and immediately made its way to Canterbury and would quickly have captured the burh if they (the citizens) had not more quickly begged them for peace. And all the East Kentish people made peace with the here and gave it 3,000 pounds. And then, immediately after, the army turned around [wende abuten] until it came to the Isle of Wight, and there, both in Sussex and Hampshire and also in Berkshire, ravaged and burnt, as their custom is.363

since they were already there and presumably sailed with their fleet from the Isle of Wight, which is where the here had been when last mentioned by John. Hemingr and Eglaf commanded an ‘immense fleet’ whilst Thorkell commanded a ‘fleet’. Hemingr and Eglaf are described as ‘dukes’ [duces] whilst Thorkell is described as ‘count’ [comes]. So it is apparent that Thorkell was coming with new liðs to reinforce the existing army in England. By 1012, after the death of his brother, Hemingr, Thorkell gained command of the whole Scandinavian army in England, and this explains why the words ‘which we called Thorkell’s army’ were added to the exemplar of ASC C, later in the eleventh century. At this time, however, the army was under the command of Hemingr and Eglaf, although, no doubt, Thorkell would have been associated in the leadership.

Fortunately, there is a more extensive version of this story. It is extant in the Chronicle of John of Worcester but is probably derived from the original material available to the writer of the Æthelredian Exemplar. It thus provides an example, similar to that provided by a comparison of ASC A annal for the year 1001, of how the writer of the Æthelredian Exemplar misleads his audience by a selective use of his sources. John’s passage reads:

Reaction to the Renewed Attack King Æthelred and his witan were faced with an enormous problem. Some sense of their difficulties can be understood by an examination of the law codes that were issued at about this time. A revised version of V Æthelred, known as VI Æthelred, contained the clause:

The Danish earl Thorkell [comes Turkillus] came to England with his fleet and afterwards, in August, another immense fleet of the Danes [alia classis Danorum innumerabilis], under the command of Hemming and Eilaf [duces Hemmingus et Eglafus], put in at the Isle of Thanet, and without delay joined the fleet aforementioned. Both then entered the port of Sandwich, and the men, swarming down from the ships, marched with hostile intent on the city of Canterbury, and began to storm it. The citizens of Canterbury with the men of East Kent soon sought, and made an agreement with them and gave them 3,000 pounds for a secure peace. They, however, returning to their ships, steered a course for the Isle of Wight, then they pillaged frequently in Sussex and Hampshire around the coast, as was their practice, and burned very many townships.364

And if anyone damages a warship of the people, he is diligently to make reparation and pay the king for (breach of his) protection; and if one damages it so that it becomes useless, he is to pay its full value and the (fine for) breach of his protection to the king.365 This is a reaction to the fate of the great English fleet and the probable looting and destruction of the ships that had been driven ashore. The loss of the greatest fleet ever assembled by an English king, together with the loss of many lives, was a disastrous blow and undermined confidence severely. The here had not been troubled by the English fleet; it was now reinforced by another here from Denmark; and, after first invading the south-east and forcing the people of Kent to pay tribute, it was ravaging the south coast from its base on the Isle of Wight. The mood of the English is reflected by Archbishop Wulfstan homiletic phrases in a law code, VII Æthelred, dating from 1009, which commences:

Whereas the Æthelredian Exemplar infers that the invasion of Sandwich occurred immediately after the king had departed, John’s Chronicle has the destruction of the great English fleet and the departure of the king from Sandwich in the year ending December 1008. He has the arrival of Thorkell in the following year, 1009, and has the other immense fleet, led by Hemingr and Eglaf, join him at the Isle of Thanet. Only then do they proceed to Sandwich. John has Thorkell come to England, but he does not say that Hemingr and Eglaf came to England

All of us have need eagerly to labour that we may obtain God’s mercy and his compassion and that we may through his help withstand our enemies.366 It goes on to prescribe a regime of fasting and penance and concludes: And every priest is to say Mass for our lord and for all his people. And in addition one

362

Some years later, the words ‘which we called Thorkel’s army’ were added to the exemplar of ASC C. This has caused some confusion in commentaries about these events. 363 ASC CDE s.a. 1009; ‘wende abuten’ can be translated ‘returned’. 364 Translation from Darlington and McGurk, The Chronicle of John of Worcester, pp. 462-3. Note ‘alia classis’ can be translated ‘the other fleet’ as well as ‘another fleet’.

365 VI Æthelred, c. 34, in Whitelock EHD, p. 408, note 2. See also, Robertson, Laws, pp. 100-1. 366 VII Æthelred, prologue, in Whitelock EHD, p. 409 and Robertson, Laws, pp. 114-5.

54

A King in Adversity: 1006 – 1013 Mass is to be said every day in each minster with special reference to the need which is now urgent for us, until things become better. And at each service the whole community, prostrate before God’s altar, is to sing the psalm: ‘Why, O Lord, are they multiplied’ and the prayers and collects (against the heathen). And all in common, ecclesiastics and laymen, are to turn eagerly to God and to deserve his mercy. And every year henceforth God’s dues are to be paid at any rate correctly, to the end that Almighty God may have mercy on us and grant that we may overcome our enemies. God help us. Amen.367

of dies and a new issue. However, if there was an attempt to reduce the premium in the coinage, it did not last long. The next issue was known as ‘Helmet’ and the weight pattern is more complex than most. However, the majority of the issue appears to have been made with a premium of 64 pennies for each pound of silver and this may be associated with the creation of a great fleet by the English in 1008 – 1009. At this level of premium over a relatively long period, the king and his Witan must have been close to a devaluation of the currency; that is an acceptance that the coinage could not be issued again at a low premium in the foreseeable future. However, devaluation would have had the effect of permanently reducing the value of food rents and the profits of justice, so King Æthelred and his ministers continued to struggle to maintain the value of the currency and treated the premium of 64 pennies as a ‘temporary’ measure. In 1009, there was an issue of coins known as ‘Agnus Dei’, which appears to have had a low premium and this may be an indication that the king and his Witan were trying to re-establish the value of the currency at the same time as initiating a programme of national penitence with the law code, VII Æthelred.370 Unfortunately, the number of extant Agnus Dei coins is tiny and constitutes an inadequate sample. All the evidence points to enormous pressures being put upon the intrinsic value of the silver penny as a result of the war and associated political events.

There is a sense of bewilderment in this law code. What had the English done to so displease God? ‘Why, O Lord, are they multiplied’? ‘They’ being the invading here, which was now reinforced by the addition of the liðs that had accompanied the Dane, Thorkell, to England. With an enemy force occupying the Isle of Wight and threatening the whole of Wessex, their fleet destroyed, their army having suffered loss through shipwreck, the English turned to prayer to restore their morale and inspire the resolution necessary to tackle their enemies. This reaction is a reminder that it was an age of faith and that there was no clear distinction between secular and religious authority. King Æthelred ruled to fulfil God’s purpose and the Church supported the king because that was God’s will. Thus, Archbishop Wulfstan, to whom the drafting of VII Æthelred can be attributed on stylistic grounds,368 was a leading counsellor as well as a leading cleric. The English were not alone in their beliefs and a perusal of the contemporary chronicle of Thietmar of Merseburg provides ample evidence that the same thoughts permeated the religious and secular direction of political events in Germany and the surrounding regions.369

Continuance of the Great Invasion The Scandinavian here regarded the truce with the people of East Kent as a local issue and so had no inhibitions about returning to the Isle of Wight and, from there, conducting raiding expeditions against the mainland opposite their stronghold. King Æthelred took action to mitigate the damage caused by the here: Then the king ordered the whole national army [þeodscipe] to be called out, so that they (the here) should be withstood on every side. But, for all that, they travelled however they wished [i.e. by sea and/or land]. Then on a certain journey, the king got in front of them with all the fyrd, when they wanted (to return) to (their) ships, and all the folk were ready to capture them [or, possibly, ‘fight a battle with them’]. But then it was hindered because of Ealdorman Eadric, as it always was.371

The payment of tribute, the cost of creating the fleet and the continuing need to maintain English fyrds was a drain on resources and the adverse consequences for the economy were becoming apparent. There were further manipulations of the currency as the English Witan struggled to pay for the war against the Scandinavian here. Earlier an issue known as ‘Long Cross’ had been issued with a low premium of 8 pennies to the pound to replace the ‘Intermediate Small Cross’ issue. However, the need for an increase in the coinage, possibly in connection with a payment of 36,000 pounds to a Scandinavian army in 1007, led the government to direct moneyers to increase the premium for ‘Long Cross’ pennies to 64 pence per pound. Following the normal pattern, the increase in premium was followed by a recall

Whilst the bishops were seeking salvation in prayer, the king and his sons took a more warlike approach to the problem, although their scope for action was severely limited. At this time there was little distinction between fighting on land and sea. Naval battles were essentially land battles fought on the sea. It follows that the best

367

VII Æthelred, c. 6.1 – 8, in Whitelock EHD, pp. 410-11 and Robertson, Laws, pp. 116-17. 368 Keynes, Diplomas, p. 219. 369 Now in English translation: Warner, Ottonian Germany, the Chronicon of Thietmar of Merseburg.

370 Keynes draws attention to the likely relationship between the penitential law code and the Agnus Dei coins. Keynes, Diplomas, p. 219. 371 ASC CDE s.a. 1009.

55

The Reign of Æthelred II soldiers from the English levies had been involved in the disaster that had recently befallen the great English fleet and many had died in the storm and shipwrecks. The Æthelredian Exemplar says that the Scandinavian here was immense. In these circumstances it should be expected that the king would adopt a Fabian policy in which the enemy here was hindered by the English fyrd so that it was unsafe for it to send out raiding and foraging parties. Following such a policy, the king would have avoided fighting a major battle with his demoralised forces against an enemy that might have been numerically superior. The Æthelredian Exemplar, in effect, ascribes this Fabian policy to Ealdorman Eadric and does so in denigratory fashion. However, it should not be forgotten that this version of the chronicle was written in 1016 in support of Edmund Ironside and that Edmund’s hated enemy was Ealdorman Eadric, who eventually, according to this same chronicle, betrayed Edmund and the English cause. Whatever we may think of the English tactics, the Æthelredian Exemplar describes no further devastation of the south coast by the Scandinavian here at this time and, as the winter season approached the here, or a significant part of it, sailed along the Channel coast and took up winter quarters on the Thames:

the Thames Valley as far as Oxford. The English were surprised by this action, just as they had been in 1006 when Wallingford was burnt. This time the here was able to take and burn the burh at Oxford. With its defences destroyed, it was relatively easy for the here to loot and forage in Oxford and the surrounding area. The here then came back along the Thames Valley in two bands, one on each side of the river. The English meanwhile had gathered a fyrd to deal with the here, which had made itself especially vulnerable by the manner in which it had divided its forces. The English fyrd prepared to meet one of the divisions of the here outside London on the north bank of the river. Somehow the Scandinavians learned about the presence of the English fyrd and the northern division of the here crossed the Thames at Staines and joined the southern division. Staines had been an important crossing of the Thames since Roman times and there was probably more than one bridge there.375 Once the whole here was on the southern side of the Thames it was relatively safe from the English fyrd and was able to journey through Surrey back to its safe-haven on the lower Thames beyond London. There they spent the rest of the winter and in the spring of 1010 they prepared their ships for use in the following campaigning season. Anticipating that English preparations for the next campaign would be concentrated on Wessex and the southeast shires, the Scandinavian here chose to campaign in East Anglia in 1010:

Then after Martinmas they journeyed back again to Kent. And they took up winter quarters on the Thames, and lived off Essex and off the adjoining shires on both sides of the Thames. And frequently they fought against the burh of London. But, praise be to God, it still remains unharmed, and they always suffered harm there.372

In this year the aforementioned here came, after Easter [9 April], to East Anglia and landed at Ipswich. And (they) went straightway to where they sought Ulfcetel with his fyrd. That was on Ascension Day [18 May] and then the men of East Anglia immediately fled. Then the men of Cambridgeshire stood steadfastly against (the enemy). There were slain Æthelstan the king’s relative [aþum], Oswig and his son, Wulf son of Leofwine, Eadwig, brother of Æfic, and many other good thegns and innumerable other folk. Thurcetel Mare’s Head first started the flight. The Danes [þa Denan] had control of the place of slaughter and there took to horseback and afterwards had control of East Anglia and burned the country (for) three months. And first they set out into the wild fens and they killed and burned men and cattle throughout the fens; and they burned Thetford and Cambridge.376

Martinmas is 11 November. The reference to London still being ‘unharmed’ is a reminder that the Æthelredian Exemplar was being written in 1016 when citizens and troops loyal to Queen Emma were still defending the burh. The Scandinavian here had found itself a safehaven on the Thames, possibly the Isle of Dogs.373 There, they and their ships were relatively safe from attack. The Æthelredian Exemplar says that they frequently attacked the burh at London. This was of enormous strategic importance. The burghal fortifications at London were linked by London Bridge to similar fortifications across the Thames at Southwark. Because there was access to the burh across London Bridge it was impossible to surround London’s burh for the purposes of conducting a siege.374 Also, the Bridge made it impossible for the here to take its ships up the Thames into the rich Thames Valley.

This entry in the chronicle is remarkably detailed and must be derived from a source that was very knowledgeable about these events. Hitherto the here had ravaged Wessex, English Mercia and the southeast. Now it attacked the Danelaw and destroyed important urban centres such as Thetford and Cambridge. This was the

The Scandinavians solution to this frustrating problem was to conduct another winter campaign, at a time when they were unlikely to be troubled by an English fyrd. After Christmas, they bypassed London and advanced up 372

Ibid. Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 85-6. See Howard I. Harthacnut, The Last Danish King of England, Stroud, The History Press, 2008, Illustration 4, p. 82. 373

375

Margary I. D. Roman Roads in Britain, London: John Baker, 1973, p. 85. 376 ASC CDE s.a. 1010.

374

56

A King in Adversity: 1006 – 1013 second time that Ulfcetel had distinguished himself in battle against an invading army. The inability of the English in the south to deal with this here and their unwillingness to engage it in a decisive battle was all too apparent to the people of the Danelaw and, as a result of English tactics, the here had become a threat to them. Some three years later, when the Danelaw was again invaded, this time by King Swein Forkbeard, Ulfcetel and his people were quick to ally themselves with the Danish king and join in his attack on the English to the south.

through bad policy [unrædas, ill-advice], in that they were never offered tribute in time. But when they had done most to harm (us), peace and truce were made with them. And nevertheless, for all this truce and tribute, they travelled in all directions in (armed) bands and ravaged our poor people and plundered them and killed them.379 There are two lists, one of shires north of the Thames and one of shires south of the Thames. The last place on each list, Northamptonshire and Wiltshire were the venues for the rather surprising autumn campaign described above. This is followed by a reflection on events in which the writer disapproves of the conduct of the war and the policy failures. However, these failures were not so apparent at the time.

After burning and looting in East Anglia for some three months, the Scandinavian here returned to the south and into the Thames Valley. The here campaigned west: into Oxfordshire, and from thence into Buckinghamshire, and so along the (River) Ouse until they came to Bedford, and so forward as far as Tempsford. And always they burned as they went. Then (they) made their way again to the ships with their booty [herehuðe].377

Although the writer of the Æthelredian Exemplar had a detailed source of information about the attack on East Anglia in 1010 and also had a detailed source of information for the sack of Canterbury, which occurred in later 1011, he tells us very little about what happened in between, other than to provide lists of counties that had been ravaged. John of Worcester’s Chronicle fills this gap, explaining that a truce was agreed and that a gafol payment was made. The Old Icelandic saga evidence is that Thorkell departed from England at this time and pursued Viking activities in association with Olaf Haraldsson (St Olaf, the future king of Norway) off the Danish coast.380 The Encomium Emmae Reginae381 indicates that there was some further fighting in England in which the Scandinavian leader, Hemingr StrutHaraldsson, Thorkell’s brother, was killed. Then Thorkell returned to England with his followers to re-join the here and to seek revenge for his brother’s death. Following this the Scandinavians attacked Canterbury in September 1011, and the Æthelredian Exemplar returns to providing a detailed account of events, although it does not explain why the here attacked Canterbury:

In this annal, the Æthelredian Exemplar describes the here making a great raid that swept across the midlands and collecting much booty. The Æthelredian Exemplar says that there was an English fyrd in the field but once again it appears to have pursued Fabian tactics and avoided engaging the enemy in a major battle. The Æthelredian Exemplar denigrates what it considers to have been a supine policy. It goes on to say that there was no agreement in the Witan about how best to defend the country from the here. Whilst the English were thus in disarray, the here conducted further raids in the midlands, where they burned Northampton, and in Wessex during November 1010. They returned to their ships at Christmas, leaving the English with little option but to negotiate a truce for the winter season. 378 Peace Negotiations and the Sack of Canterbury

And then in this year, between the Nativity of St Mary and Michaelmas,382 they surrounded Canterbury; and they got into (it) by treachery, because Ælfmær betrayed it, (a man) whose life Archbishop Ælfheah had previously saved. There they captured the archbishop, Ælfheah, and the king’s reeve, Ælfweard, and Abbess Leofrun and Bishop Godwine; and Abbot Ælfmær they allowed (to go) away. And inside there they captured all the ordained men and (other) men and women – it was not possible for any man to describe how many people that was. And after they were in that burh for as

The English sued for peace and the annal in the Æthelredian Exemplar for the year 1011 says: Here in this year, the king and his witan sent to the here and begged for peace, and promised them tribute and provisions on condition that they should cease their ravaging. They had then overrun: (i) East Anglia, (ii) Essex, (iii) Middlesex, (iv) Oxfordshire, (v) Cambridgeshire, (vi) Hertfordshire, (vii) Buckinghamshire, (viii) Bedfordshire, (ix) half Huntingdonshire, (x) much of Northamptonshire; and south of the Thames all Kent, Sussex, Hastings, Surrey, Berkshire, Hampshire and much of Wiltshire. All those disasters befell us

379

ASC CDE s.a. 1011. Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 92-5. 381 Campbell, Encomium, Bk. I, c. 2. The chronology and sequence of events are explained in Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 92-5 and Appendix 1, pp. 147-62. 382 That is between 8 September and 29 September. 380

377

ASC CDE s.a. 1010. The sources for the Scandinavian campaign of 1010/1011 are examined in more detail in Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 86-95. 378

57

The Reign of Æthelred II long as they wished and when they had searched the burh thoroughly, they then went to their ships and led the archbishop with them.

including the leading thegnes of the Danelaw, witness as ‘miles’.388 The Æthelredian Exemplar makes no mention of these events and the conclusion must be drawn that the omission is both misleading and deliberate since the Æthelredian Exemplar was written when these events should have been fresh in the memory of many people, especially somebody as close to the centre of political activity as Archbishop Wulfstan of York, the sponsor of the Æthelredian Exemplar. The rhetorical final passage in the annal for 1011 fills a gap in the Æthelredian Exemplar’s account from the sack of Canterbury in September 1011 until it records the following events in and around London in April 1012:

There was prisoner who before was primate of England and of Christendom. There might one see hardship where often before one saw happiness; in that wretched burh where first came Christianity and joy for God and for the world. And they had the archbishop with them until the time when they martyred him.383

Here in this year Ealdorman Eadric and all the most senior counsellors [ildestan witan] of England, ecclesiastical and lay, came to the burh of London [Lundenbyrig] before Easter. That (year), Easter Sunday was on 13 April. And they were there until all the tribute payment was completed after Easter: that was 48,000 pounds. Then on the Saturday the here was greatly incensed against the bishop because he would not promise them any money, but forbade that anything should be given or allowed in return for him. They were also very drunk, because southern wine was brought there. Then they took the bishop, led him to their meeting place, on the eve of Sunday in the Easter Octave, which was 19 April, and there pelted him with bones and with oxheads, and one of them struck him then with the back of an axe, on his head, and with that blow he fell down and his holy blood fell on the ground and his holy soul was sent to God’s kingdom. And in the morning his body was taken to London [Lundene], and there bishops Eadnoth and Ælfhun and the inhabitant of the burh accepted it with all honour and buried him in St. Paul’s Minster and there God now reveals the powers of the holy martyr.389

These actions are dated between 8 September and 29 September. There is no explanation of how the burh was betrayed by Ælfmær or why an Englishman should betray the burh for that matter. The Æthelredian Exemplar implies that Abbot Ælfmær was the culprit, but John of Worcester, says that it was an Archdeacon Ælfmær who betrayed the burh. He says that Abbot Ælfmær of St Augustine’s was allowed to depart by the here, though he gives no explanation for this seemingly generous act on the part of the Scandinavians who, according to John, then behaved in a vile manner, torturing and killing the inhabitants, actions which John describes in gruesome detail. It is possible that he is being imaginative in his defence of Abbot Ælfmær as well as in his description of what happened to the inhabitants of Canterbury, although Osbern’s Vita Elphegi provided him with a description of events in Canterbury.384 The rhetorical final passage of this Æthelredian Exemplar annal is of particular interest and should be compared with the observations from this same chronicle in the annal for 979 (recte 978) recording the death of King Edward the Martyr.385 There follows another gap in the Æthelredian Exemplar’s account of events. Although Archbishop Ælfheah of Canterbury was held captive for several months, there is no mention of an attempt to save him. Both the Æthelredian Exemplar and John of Worcester’ Chronicle explain that the archbishop refused to negotiate a ransom for himself and forbade anybody to give a ransom for him.386 Yet during this period the English must have agreed another truce and offered another very large gafol payment, which was paid, following the normal pattern of events, in the April of the following year (1012).387 Also, there is charter evidence that an English fyrd was summoned at some time between September 1011 and September 1012. In this charter, the king’s ministers,

The information that Ealdorman Eadric led the chief councillors to London is evidence that King Æthelred was ill at this time. The chief councillors made themselves safe within the fortifications of the burh of London [Lundenbyrig]. The here was probably based on the Thames at Greenwich at this time. There, the archbishop angered the here by refusing to agree to a ransom. This refusal coupled with the manner of his death was accounted the act of a martyr. Proof of his sanctity and translation into Heaven were to be found in the miracles granted by God to the people who prayed at Ælfheah’s tomb in St Paul’s Minster, asking the saint to

383

ASC CDE s.a. 1011. Darlington and McGurk, John of Worcester, pp. 468 – 9 and footnotes. 385 Both passages may suggest Archbishop Wulfstan’s direct intervention as sponsor of the Æthelredian Exemplar. 386 ASC CDE s.a. 1012. John embellishes the account in the Æthelredian Exemplar. Darlington and McGurk, John of Worcester, pp. 470-1. John’s source for this information was Osbern, Vita Elphegi: see ibid. notes 5 and 6. 387 Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, p. 96. 384

388 389

58

S.926 dated 1012, indiction September 1011 to September 1012. ASC D s.a. 1012.

A King in Adversity: 1006 – 1013 intercede for them.390 The annal continues, without any further reflection on the archbishop’s death:

King Swein Forkbeard, in Denmark, to consider leading an invasion force himself. There was a real fear in the Danish court that King Æthelred had fallen into the power of Earl Thorkell, who was thereby becoming the de facto ruler of England. The activities of Thorkell inn havi Strut-Haraldsson396 at this time are important. He was an elder brother of Hemingr and he had joined the great army in 1009, following the destruction of the English fleet in a great storm. He had taken his share of the geld, paid by the English and returned to Denmark where he had joined Olaf Haraldsson397 in attacking Viking ships off the Danish coast. Following Hemingr’s death, probably during 1011, he returned to England with a large Scandinavian force. By 1012 he was the leader of the Scandinavian army in England when it made peace with King Æthelred and received a heregeld payment. Although some of the army returned to Scandinavia, 45 ships remained to form a mercenary fleet in the pay of the English king. Thorkell commanded this fleet and his action in taking service with the English king was regarded as an act of betrayal by King Swein and, according to the Encomium, it was this action that convinced Swein that he should invade and conquer England. A scribe, who was informed by Queen Emma of England, put these words into the mouth of King Swein’s military commanders:

Then the tribute was paid and peace was sworn by oaths. Then the here dispersed as far as it had been gathered. Then 45 ships from the here made submission to the king, and they promised him that they would defend this country, and he was to feed and clothe them.391 The Æthelredian Exemplar’s statement that the enemy army dispersed except that part of it formed a mercenary army and promised to defend the country is a strange way to explain matters, though it should be remembered that the writer of the Æthelredian Exemplar had gone to some lengths to avoid admitting that King Æthelred employed Scandinavians as mercenaries on many occasions during his reign. The leader of the king’s new mercenary army was Thorkell,392 so it is clear that the Danish earl did not blame King Æthelred for the death of his brother, Hemingr. Equally, the king cannot have blamed Thorkell for the death of the archbishop, which was an event that shocked Europe.393 This final part to the annal for the year 1012 refers specifically to the king, although he was noticeably absent when Ealdorman Eadric led the English Witan to London at Easter. This suggests that the agreement with the Scandinavian here was made later in the year, indicating that the payment of the tribute ‘after Easter’ took many weeks and possibly months.

‘‘Thorkell,’’ said they, ‘‘your military commander, Lord King, having been granted licence by you, has gone to avenge his brother, who was killed there, and leading away a large part of your army, exults that he has conquered. Now, as a victor, he has acquired the south of the country, and living there as an exile, and having become an ally of the English, whom he has conquered through your power, he prefers the enjoyment of his glory to leading his army back, and in submission giving you the credit of his victory. And we are cheated of our companions and forty ships, which he led with him, manned from among the best Danish warriors. Let not our lord suffer so grave a loss, but go forth leading his willing army, and we will subdue for him the contumacious Thorkell, together with his companions, and also the English who are leagued with them, and all their possessions. We are certain that they cannot resist long, because our countrymen will come over to us readily. If they are willing to do so, the king, sparing his commander and the Danes shall advance them with honours; but if they are unwilling, they shall know whom it is that

King Æthelred and his Witan had been forced to revert to a policy of paying a mercenary army to help defend England. Morale was severely shaken and the economy had been reduced as a consequence of the activities of the Scandinavian here and the English fyrd. The ‘tribute’ paid in 1012 was probably made with an issue of silver pennies known as ‘last small cross’. It was issued at a premium of 88 pence. The economic consequences of the troubles that followed in the next two years were such that the coinage never recovered its earlier value.394 King Swein’s Invasion and Conquest395 The creation of a mercenary force to defend England did not provide any respite. On the contrary, it provoked 390

St Ælfheah’s body was translated from St Paul’s Minster, London, to Canterbury in 1023, but this annal was written some years before the translation. See Howard, Harthacnut, The Last Danish King of England, pp. 18-27. 391 ASC CDE s.a. 1012. 392 ASC CDE s.a. 1013. 393 Thietmar of Merseburg has an account of the archbishop’s death, in which he states that Thorkell attempted to save his life: Chronicon Bk 7, cc. 42-3, Warner, Ottonian Germany, pp. 336-7. 394 Later, King Cnut and his advisers acknowledged that the English coinage had been devalued when they raised the premium to 160 pence. This was in 1017, when it was necessary to pay off the here that had helped Cnut conquer England. 395 This section is based upon detailed analysis of King Swein’s itinerary in Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 99-123.

396 Thorkell inn havi Strut-Haraldsson translates as ‘Thorkell the Tall, son of Harold the Hat’. Earl Strut-Haraldr got this name because he had a hat (strútr is a cone-shaped top to a hat) ‘on which the ornaments were valued at ten gold marks’: Blake N. F. (trans.), The Saga of the Jomsvikings, London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1962, p. 18, c. 17. 397 Later to become king of Norway and St Olaf.

59

The Reign of Æthelred II they have despised. Deprived of country both here and there, they shall pay the penalty among the foremost enemies of the king.’’398

By the year 1013, not only had England suffered from famine and war, but the people of the Danelaw and Northumbria had become increasingly alienated from the southern court. They had suffered enormous hardship as a result of the campaign in East Anglia by the Scandinavian here in 1010. Trade along the eastern coast of England must have been severely affected by the troubles, and economic difficulties were exacerbated by the need to make enormous payments to the king for the tribute paid to the Scandinavian here in 1012. Now there was a mercenary army that would require payment and the king’s arrangements with his mercenary army were on the point of provoking an invasion by King Swein Forkbeard of Denmark. They would have known this because King Swein’s supporters were actively canvassing the leaders of the people in the Danelaw and Northumberland to defect and recognise Swein as their king in the event of an invasion. The northern leaders agreed to support Swein’s invasion and probably gave him hostages. Whilst these negotiations were continuing the northern leaders continued to journey to the south to attend King Æthelred’s court, as their witness of charters at this time serves to attest.

Swein’s commanders are made to say that Thorkell has ‘conquered’ the ‘south of the country’. This paragraph was first written about twenty years after the Æthelredian Exemplar, and, the ‘south of the country’ means England south of Watling Street, the old Roman road from London that crossed England in a north-westerly direction. This division of England was politically significant; a significance which is apparent from the events of the year 1013. Swein’s fear that Thorkell had ‘conquered’ southern England was not unreasonable since the force at Thorkell’s command probably numbered some 3,500 men at a time when the population of London, by far the largest city in the kingdom, was about 10,000. England north of Watling Street included two important political divisions. One of these, East Anglia and the Danelaw, had acknowledged the authority of the West Saxon kings since the time of Edward the Elder. The other, Northumbria, including Yorkshire and the land between the rivers Mersey and Ribble, had maintained a degree of independence until their leaders had submitted to the West Saxon king in the year 954. Even then there was a relative degree of independence since the West Saxon kings had to rely upon established families to govern in their name. During a period of sixty years, England north of Watling Street had enjoyed a growth in economic prosperity and an increasing population. The West Saxon kings had effectively used the riches of the see of Worcester as a basis for increasing the authority of the see of York by combining the two sees under the control of the archbishop of York. This helped to strengthen the Christian religion and marginalize paganism in the north. It also meant that the West Saxon king could increase his political secular influence through his appointment of bishops and abbots. However the West Saxon Witan and the nobility, particularly in English Mercia, were suspicious of the northerners and jealous of their increasing economic prosperity and the power that came from an increase in trade and shipping. This trade also meant that the inhabitants of Northumbria, the Danelaw and East Anglia had more and more contact with the peoples of the Baltic regions and the northern European mainland. Many of the people were descendents of Scandinavians. Evidence of ‘English’ distrust of the northerners has been noted above in relation to the St Brice’s Day massacre and the death of Ealdorman Ælfhelm. It is not surprising that over this period of sixty years the regions north of Watling Street found that they had economic, social and political interests in common, which were over and above the links that bound them to the rest of England south of Watling Street.

King Æthelred and his advisers must have been aware that preparations were being made in Denmark for an invasion of England, as King Swein gathered his fleet together during the summer. Thorkell and his mercenary forces appear to have been stationed at Greenwich from where they could defend London from attack. Before the end of July, Swein’s fleet set sail and came to Sandwich. This was a strategically important location from where King Swein could threaten Canterbury and possibly London. However, the position of Thorkell’s fleet and army effectively prevented King Swein’s fleet from attacking London from the Thames and also made it unsafe for Swein’s here to take up a station on the Thames from where they could harry Essex and Kent as invading heres had done in the past. On the basis of previous experience, the English might have expected King Swein to sail west to the Isle of Wight, which he could use as a base for harrying Wessex. It is not apparent whether King Æthelred had defensive strategies for such an eventuality because King Swein did not sail west. Instead he sailed north on a course, which it soon became apparent had been planned before the invasion. He went very quickly round East Anglia into the mouth of the Humber, and then up the River Trent until he reached Gainsborough. There, Earl Uhtred and all the Northumbrians submitted to him, as did all the people of Lindsey, and then all the people belonging to the district of the Five Boroughs, and quickly afterwards all the Danish settlers north of Watling Street, and hostages were given to him from every shire.399 The leaders of the shires that had submitted included the famous warrior, Ulfcytel, who had fought bravely against Scandinavian heres in 1004 and 1010, and Morcar and Sigeferth, relatives of Ealdorman Ælfhelm who had been killed in 1006. The

398

Campbell, Encomium, Bk. I, c. 2, Campbell’s translation. There is a discrepancy between the ASC, which claims that Thorkell had 45 ships and the Encomium, which claims he had 40.

399

60

ASC CDE s.a. 1013.

A King in Adversity: 1006 – 1013 archbishop of York, Archbishop Wulfstan, also joined the rebellion to support King Swein.400

by the citizens and by Thorkell with some of his mercenaries. Greenwich was still held by Thorkell’s fleet and London Bridge joined the burh of London to the burgh of Southwark, making it impossible to surround and blockade London. Very quickly, Swein decided that London was impregnable to an attack by his forces, since he could not surround it nor attack it from the Thames.

Thus, when King Swein Forkbeard invaded in 1013, the north of England, including Northumbria and the Danelaw, speedily rebelled against King Æthelred and accepted King Swein as their king. Then Swein took hostages from each of the shires and gave orders that his here should be provisioned and provided with horses. In addition, he called up the northern militia to augment his own army before he invaded southern England. He is described in the Æthelredian Exemplar as invading southern England mid fulre fyrde, that is with his full forces which, together, were recognised as a ‘local’ army [fyrde], not an invading army [here].

Recognising the impossibility of taking London at that time, King Swein led his army northwards. Then he took his army to the west through Wallingford, which was probably already garrisoned by his followers. Having crossed the Thames he headed southwest, to Bath, the ancient Roman town where King Edgar had been consecrated as ‘emperor’ of the British peoples. At Bath, Ealdorman Æthelmær, a relative of King Æthelred who had retired from public life in 1005, came to him with the western thegns, and all submitted to Swein, and gave him hostages. Swein garrisoned the burhs that had submitted to him, and then with all England under his control, other than London and the southeast on the southern bank of the Thames, he turned northward towards Lincoln and Gainsborough where his ships were. There, in friendly territory, he disbanded his local forces and prepared for the winter.403

His son, Cnut, had joined him on the expedition to England. Swein left the north of England in Cnut’s charge when he led his army in an invasion of the south.401 Cnut’s tasks included protecting the ships at Gainsborough, for which he would have had a large contingent of Scandinavians. He was also left to govern the north and to collect taxes and supplies to support his father’s invasion of the south. Northern leaders such as Uhtred, Ulfcytel, Morcar and Sigeferth either accompanied Swein’s invasion or helped Cnut administer the northern shires. Archbishop Wulfstan probably played a significant part in the administration, which was centred on Lincoln, with its excellent communications network.

King Æthelred’s position in London now began to look untenable. Swein controlled all the country up to the north bank of the Thames, so that, in the next campaigning season, the mercenary fleet could not safely be maintained at Greenwich. Without that fleet there was no way to escape from London down the Thames and Swein’s forces in the south would soon be in a position to prevent escape over London Bridge, through Southwark, to the south coast. Accordingly, the king and his mercenary force withdrew from London and the southeast. They travelled round the south coast to the Isle of Wight, where Scandinavian forces still remained loyal to Earl Thorkell. There the king had access, via the Channel to the coasts of Normandy and Flanders where he might hope to draw support for a re-conquest of England. Once the king had departed, ‘the citizens of London submitted and gave hostages, for they were afraid that he [Swein] would destroy them’.404

Swein’s army behaved as if it were on friendly territory whilst it was north of Watling Street. Nevertheless, supporters of King Æthelred fled and those who remained to submit to Swein were fearful of looting.402 However, discipline was maintained whilst the army travelled by Peterborough and Northampton and until it had crossed Watling Street. Swein’s army travelled in a great arc across the country from Northampton, to Oxford and then Winchester. During this journey, the army was never more than ten days journey from London itself, so it was constantly under threat, a fact that explains why Thorkell’s mercenary army remained stationed near London whilst Swein’s army was progressing and harrying through the midlands. Both Oxford and Winchester submitted and gave hostages when confronted by Swein’s army, and it is probable that other strong burhs, such as Wallingford, did likewise.

King Æthelred sent Queen Emma across the Channel to Normandy to join her brother, Duke Richard and to negotiate for his support, or at least for a temporary place of exile, whilst King Æthelred regrouped his forces. Abbot Ælfsige of Peterborough accompanied the queen to Normandy. King Æthelred then sent Bishop Ælfhun of London across the sea with the athelings Edward and Alfred, to the safety of Normandy where they could be protected by their uncle, Duke Richard. King Æthelred spent Christmas on the Isle of Wight and, after the Christmas festival, he also went across the sea to

With the north and the midlands firmly under his control, Swein turned eastwards from Winchester towards London. There was a major setback to his plans when he lost many men, who were drowned trying to ford the River Thames and when he came to London he found that the king had used the time available to him to improve the already formidable defences of the burh of London. King Æthelred was inside the burh and it was garrisoned 400

The evidence for the events surrounding this invasion is discussed in Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions. 401 ASC CDE s.a. 1013. 402 Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 114-15, provides instances of what happened.

403

Swein’s campaign is described in detail in Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions. 404 ASC CDE s.a. 1013, Whitelock’s translation.

61

The Reign of Æthelred II Normandy and, as the Æthelredian Exemplar says, he was there ‘until the happy event of Swein’s death’.405 Our sources say nothing about the activities of the elder æthelings, Æthelstan, Edmund and Eadwig, the sons of King Æthelred’s first marriage. However, the fact that a contemporary German chronicler knew the names of the æthelings Æthelstan and Edmund is evidence that they may have distinguished themselves in defending England against King Swein and that they distinguished themselves the following year during the campaign to reconquer England. The outcome of the events of the year 1013 was that Swein was the only king in England and he had been acknowledged as king by the whole country, except those areas occupied by Thorkell’s forces on the Isle of Wight and on the mainland opposite. King Swein enjoyed the active support of Earl Uhtred of Northumbria, Ulfcytel of East Anglia, and the leaders of the Danelaw – Morcar and Sigeferth. He also had the support of Archbishop Wulfstan of York and he was arranging for the archbishop to consecrate a new bishop of London to replace the bishop who had fled into exile with King Æthelred. Swein consolidated his northern alliance by the marriage of his son, Cnut, to Ælfgifu of Northampton, the daughter of Ealdorman Ælfhelm.406 After London submitted to Swein the burhs of London, Southwark, Canterbury and many other towns were garrisoned by Swein’s supporters; this was in addition to the burhs, such as Oxford, Winchester and Wallingford that he had garrisoned during his campaign. In addition, Swein held hostages from all over England. It seemed that his control of the country was almost total. The North of England had gained an important political and economic outcome from their support for Swein’s invasion of southern England. The success of the invasion and the capitulation of London meant that the North – Northumberland and the Danelaw – had achieved a new political and economic hegemony with an axis of economic power in the north, the east coast and London, replacing the axis of Wessex, the south east and London. The political shift in power reflected a new economic reality. Since Northumberland had joined all-England, there had been a shift in the wealth, trade and population in favour of the north and east of England as compared with Wessex and the south. The ‘Danish’ conquest of England appeared to be complete. However, an unexpected occurrence early in the year 1014 was to put the conquest in doubt and bring about a dramatic reversal of fortunes.

405 406

ASC CDE s.a. 1013, Whitelock’s translation. See Illustration 4, above.

62

5 Triumph and Disaster: 1014 - 1016 A scribe later amended the exemplar of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle version C so that ‘all the Witan’ was amended to read ‘all the Witan who were in England’; thus recognising that many members of King Æthelred’s Witan had fled the country. The Æthelredian Exemplar does not give recognition to the fact that most members of the Witan who remained in England had done so because they had transferred their loyalty to King Swein. Many of the English nobility must have been in attendance on King Swein, probably at York, at the time of his death. Although the consecration of the new bishop of London had not taken place when Swein died, it happened within days of his death, so it must have been planned before. This means that bishops and abbots were in attendance at King Swein’s court to be available to assist at a ceremony presided over by the archbishop of York. It was not just the Scandinavian fleet that recognised Cnut’s succession as king of Denmark and England,413 but the chief men of the English realm (the Witan) who recognised Cnut’s succession as king of the peoples of England. There is support for this in a late addition to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, version F, which says:

Death of King Swein Forkbeard King Swein retired to the north for the winter season. His fleet was at Gainsborough on the River Trent and he had allies in the north who were happy to celebrate his conquest of the south. The key burhs of the south, including London, had submitted to him and, according to skaldic tradition, had been garrisoned with men who were entirely loyal to Swein and to his son, Cnut.407 King Æthelred had retired into exile in Normandy, where he and his supporters were planning an invasion of England to liberate the south. The Danish mercenary, Thorkell the Tall, was still in England with his army stationed on the Isle of Wight, where he was relatively safe from attack. His continuing support was critical to King Æthelred’s plans. However, it would have been out of character if King Swein had not been conducting a diplomatic offensive aimed at winning Thorkell over to his side.408 Swein was now intent on placing men he could trust into key positions in the south. An example of this was the bishopric of London. Bishop Ælfhun had remained loyal to King Æthelred and had preceded his king ‘across the sea’ having been given charge of Æthelred’s young sons, Edward and Alfred.409 So King Swein arranged to have one of his supporters, Ælfwig, consecrated as bishop of London to replace Ælfhun.410 Initiatives such as this might have succeeded in securing Swein’s rule over the whole of England had the diplomatic scene not been thrown into confusion by his sudden death. The Æthelredian Exemplar says:

Here King Swein died; however, the king’s chief men and those who had come with him to England elected Cnut to kingship.414 They could hardly have done otherwise given that Swein had conquered England, there was a loyal fleet and army at Gainsborough, and the most important burhs in the north and south of England had given hostages and were garrisoned by men loyal to the Danish king. Swein was buried at York, although, as it happened, his body did not rest there for long.415 The diplomacy, which Swein had set in train, continued. A fortnight after Swein’s death, Ælfwig was consecrated as bishop of London. Archbishop Wulfstan of York officiated at the ceremony, which took place at York, with the assistance of attendant bishops and abbots.416

Here in this year Swein ended his days at Candlemas, on 3 February, and the same year Ælfwig was consecrated bishop of London at York, on St Juliana’s day [16 February], and then all the fleet elected Cnut king.411 The Æthelredian Exemplar account of events immediately after King Swein’s death is deliberately misleading when it continues:

413 The Encomium Emmae Reginae states that Cnut’s younger brother, Harald, became king of Denmark when King Swein died: Campbell, Encomium, Bk 2, cc. 1-2. This is contradicted by all the Danish king lists, the saga and skaldic evidence and evidence drawn from English sources. The statement is placed in the Encomium to make a political point that was apposite to events in the mid-eleventh century and is not to be trusted. See Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 134-5. 414 ASC F, folio 65 recto, Latin version, s.a. 1014. See also, Swanton, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 144, note 12. 415 Stevenson J. (trans.), Simeon of Durham: A History of the Kings of England, Felinfach: Llanerch Enterprises facsimile reprint, 1987 (first published in 1858 in the Church Historians of England), s.a. 1014. For the translation of his body, see Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, p.137 and note75 416 ASC D, s.a. 1014. The passage about Ælfwig’s consecration is a late addition to the Æthelredian Exemplar made immediately before the fair copy, ASC D, was written; see Appendix 2, below.

Then all the Witan, ecclesiastical and lay, determined to send for King Æthelred, and they said that no lord was dearer to them than their natural lord, if he would govern them more justly than he did before.412 407

Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, p. 120-3. Ibid. p. 124-6. ASC CDE s.a. 1013. 410 ASC D s.a. 1014, and Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, p. 128. 411 ASC CDE s.a. 1014. Swein died after noon on 2 February 1014: see Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, p.126. 412 ASC CDE s.a. 1014. 408 409

63

The Reign of Æthelred II later, in 1015.418 But that was in the future and shortly after these negotiations King Æthelred was able to return to southern England where he was greeted with joy:

The Return of King Æthelred The English nobility in attendance at his court when Swein died had little choice but to acknowledge Cnut as his successor. However, although the northern leaders had transferred their allegiance willingly, the southern provinces had been conquered and there must have been dissatisfaction in the south at the apparent transfer of royal authority to York. Even if temporary, this acknowledgement of the increased importance of the northern provinces had economic as well as political implications. Moreover, Thorkell remained loyal to King Æthelred, providing a focal point in the south for opposition to the new regime. The following passage in the Æthelredian Exemplar provides evidence of the negotiations between the exiled King Æthelred and noble families in the south of England who wished to free themselves from their new Danish rulers.

Then during the spring [lænctentid, Lent] King Æthelred came home to his own people and he was gladly received by them all.419 King Æthelred and his advisers had been planning a return to England and had negotiated the help of Olaf Haraldsson, the pretender to the throne of Norway, and his lið. Olaf was bitterly opposed to Swein and Cnut because Swein had destroyed his cousin, King Olaf Tryggvason, at the battle of Svold in the year 1000 and Norway had been ruled by Swein’s allies, the earls of Lade, since then. Although King Æthelred’s eldest sons, by his first wife, were apparently not with him in Normandy, it is likely that they were also on the Continent and raising a force for an invasion of England. Certainly, Bishop Thietmar of Merseburg knew about the eldest æthelings, Æthelstan and Edmund, and rated them as warriors.420 This does not mean that the æthelings were in Thietmar’s native Saxony; it is more likely that they were in neighbouring Flanders which was to prove the preferred place of exile for many Englishmen, and Queen Emma herself, over the succeeding decades. It is apparent that King Swein’s death in England united the exiled Englishmen who pooled their resources and returned to England via southern ports where Thorkell the Tall could provide protection for their landing.

Then the king [Æthelred] sent his son Edward hither with his messengers, and bade (them) greet all his people, and said that he would be a gracious lord to them, and reform all the things that they all hated. And all the things should be forgiven that had been recited or proclaimed against him, on condition that they all unanimously (and) without deception turned to him. And full friendship was then established with word and pledge on either side, and (they) proclaimed every Danish king an outlaw from England forever.417 That King Æthelred should send his young son, Edward, to represent him is evidence that his elder sons by his first marriage had not accompanied him to Normandy. They, of course, had no family connections there, whilst Edward was half Norman through his mother, Queen Emma. That Edward should have been entrusted with a mission which must have involved a certain amount of risk is a reminder that King Æthelred had been ill in 1012 and that Queen Emma was already manoeuvring to retain political influence when her much older husband died.

It seems that Cnut and his advisers underestimated the threat posed by King Æthelred until it was too late and that Cnut was inept in his handling of military strategy at this time.421 According to the Æthelredian Exemplar, Cnut was slow to react to the dangers posed by Æthelred’s return to England. Then after Swein was dead, Cnut stayed in Gainsborough with his here until Easter, and he and the people in Lindsey came to an agreement that they would provide him with horses and then go out and ravage all together. Then King Æthelred came with his full fyrd there to Lindsey before they were ready, and then (they) ravaged and burnt and killed all the men who could be got at. And Cnut put out to sea with his fleet, and thus the wretched people were betrayed through him. And then he turned south until he came to Sandwich, and there the

The Ætheling Edward, and the courtiers who accompanied him, conducted successful negotiations and there were many people in Wessex and the southeast of England who were prepared to welcome King Æthelred’s return when he invaded the south of England. However, since most of the people in southern England had recently submitted to King Swein, it was politic for them to seek a guarantee of forgiveness from King Æthelred at this time. Also, they must have delayed as long as possible ‘proclaiming’ their change of allegiance since King Cnut held the hostages which they had given to his father. Indeed, there is irony in the last phrase in the above passage from the Æthelredian Exemplar, since many of the people of Wessex were to accept the ‘Danish king’, Cnut, as their rightful king only a few months

417

418

ASC CDE s.a. 1015. ASC CDE s.a. 1014. 420 Warner, Thietmar of Merseburg, cc. 40, 41, pp. 335-6. Thietmar was not aware that the Ætheling Æthelstan died at the end of June 1014 and continues to name him as Æthelred’s eldest surviving son after that date. 421 See Campbell, Encomium, Bk. II, c. 1. The encomiast makes an attempt to explain away Cnut’s failure, but it is obvious that he is struggling. 419

ASC CDE s.a. 1014.

64

Triumph and Disaster: 1014 – 1016 hostages, who had been given to his father, were put ashore, and their hands, ears and noses were cut off.422

The English Succession Crisis Following Cnut’s departure and King Æthelred’s triumphant return, it was the turn of the north to feel that it was conquered territory. According to the Æthelredian Exemplar, Æthelred’s army had ‘ravaged and burnt’ the province of Lindsey. It is likely that the army also advanced further north on this occasion and that there was more fighting, which is unrecorded, since Cnut’s army suffered losses and returned to Denmark with only 60 ships.426 As the Æthelredian Exemplar indicates, the people of the north, including their leaders, felt betrayed by Cnut’s hasty departure.

Like his father in the previous campaigning season, King Cnut ordered a local levy to reinforce his Scandinavian army. According the Æthelredian Exemplar, Cnut was dilatory in making his preparations but, in fact, the Æthelredian Exemplar is being reticent about events. It does not admit that the army that Æthelred led to reconquer England was largely made up of Scandinavian mercenaries led by Thorkell the Tall and by other leaders such as Olaf Haraldsson. It ignores the capture of the burhs of Southwark and London by King Æthelred’s forces, a significant military feat in which Olaf and his Norwegian liðs distinguished themselves by destroying London Bridge so that the fortifications and defenders of the burhs at Southwark and London were separated.423 It minimises the losses suffered by Cnut’s forces before the devastation of Lindsey, in a battle in which Ulfcytel of East Anglia played a significant role fighting for King Cnut. It makes no mention of the recapture of other English burhs, such as that at Canterbury, from their Scandinavian garrisons.424 However, the Æthelredian Exemplar does admit that Æthelred’s mercenaries commanded by Thorkell had to be paid, although it implies that they had remained based on the Thames throughout Æthelred’s absence from England, which, as we have seen, is misleading.

There is charter evidence that the northern leaders quickly made peace with King Æthelred and that they were accepted back into the royal council.427 Before doing so, they removed Swein Forkbeard’s body from its resting place at York and sent it, together with Cnut’s wife and son, named Swein after his grandfather, to Denmark.428 In 1015 an attempt was made to heal the breach between the north and the south of England and a ‘great assembly’ was convened at Oxford.429 It was a place that had featured several times in the strained relations between the Danelaw and English Mercia. Oxford was, at that time the most significant town and burh in English Mercia. In 1002 its people had taken the opportunity afforded by the St Brice’s Day Massacre to riot and kill Danish settlers and traders in the town, even to the extent of burning a church in order to attack some unfortunate ‘Danes’ who had sought refuge there.430 Seven years later, a Scandinavian army had attacked Oxford and burnt the burh in the winter of 1009-10.431 In 1013 it had been forced to surrender to King Swein’s army and it must have been among the burhs that had to be recovered from a Scandinavian garrison in 1014. Since Oxford was in English Mercia, it no doubt fell to Ealdorman Eadric to organise the meeting of the ‘great assembly’.

And on top of all these evils, the king ordered 21,000 pounds to be paid to the here that lay at Greenwich. And in this year, on the eve of St Michael’ Day, [28 September] that great sea-flood came widely over this country, and came further inland than it had ever done before, and drowned many villages and a countless number of people.425

Although the people of the north of England had been defeated, the regions north of Watling Street still represented half the country and in terms of population, wealth and trade were more than equal to the south of the country, excluding London which with its significant wealth and trade held a pivotal position between the north and south. It was politically essential to reinstate the understanding between north and south that there should be a single government in England, which, though

The Æthelredian Exemplar informed us earlier that King Æthelred was ‘gladly received’ by ‘his own people’ when he returned. Now it notes their not unreasonable dissatisfaction at paying the price of his return; for the payment to Æthelred’s mercenary forces must have been associated with a heavy taxation of his subjects. In this context, the description of Æthelred’s army as here – enemy army – is understandable. It is interesting to note that, following Æthelred’s triumphant return, there was a great natural disaster; so even at this juncture God seemed to be punishing the English. It echoes the Æthelredian Exemplar’s description of another natural disaster, famine, which occurred in 1005 and distracted attention from the fact that a Scandinavian army under the command of the king of Denmark had withdrawn from England having suffered heavy losses and having received no tribute.

426 Campbell, Encomium, Bk. II, c. 1. See also, Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, p. 134. 427 S. 933 and Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, p. 131. The Law VIII Æthelred in the style of Archbishop Wulfstan is dated to the year 1014. It says that this Law ‘is one of the ordinances that the king of the English [Engla cyninge] drew up with the advice of his witan’: Liebermann, Gesetze, vol. I, p. 263. It does not say whether the ‘king’ is Cnut or Æthelred, but no commentator has suggested that it means anybody other than King Æthelred. As such, it is further evidence that Wulfstan was restored to King Æthelred’s favour during 1014. 428 Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 137 and note 75. 429 ASC CDE s.a. 1015. 430 Chapter 3, above. 431 Chapter 4, above.

422

ASC CDE s.a. 1014. See Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, p. 129. Ibid. p. 130. 425 ASC CDE s.a. 1014, Whitelock’s translation. 423 424

65

The Reign of Æthelred II itinerant, was based in the Thames Valley. King Æthelred’s first wife had been a northerner and his heir apparent, the Ætheling Æthelstan, had many northern connections, so he would have been in a strong position to unite the country. Unfortunately, he died, on 25 June 1014, 432 before the Council of Oxford was convened.

thegns of the Seven Burhs.434 (He) enticed them into his chamber, and in there they were killed improperly. And the king then seized all their property and ordered Sigeferth’s widow to be seized and brought to Malmesbury.435

The Ætheling Æthelstan’s will has survived in an original version and in copies taken from original versions. It was normal practice to write an important document such as a will more than once on a folio, separated by the word ‘cyrograph’. The folio was then cut across the middle of this word so that the will could later be verified as accurate by bringing two or more versions together and demonstrating that they were from the same folio by putting them together and re-creating the word ‘cyrograph’. One version of Æthelstan’s will has the top half of the word ‘cyrograph’ at the foot.433 Reading the will it is apparent that the Ætheling Æthelstan was a wealthy influential man, owning extensive propertyrights in addition to the use of land designated for the king’s eldest son. He was a leading member of the warrior class and he possessed many swords, one of which had been gifted to him by Ulfcetel. His bequests show that he was on excellent terms with the most important leaders of the Danelaw, men such as Sigeferth and Morcar. In England after the re-conquest, in which the Æthelings Æthelstan, Edmund and Eadwig must have played an important although unrecorded part, the Ætheling Æthelstan was arguably the most important political figure. His father was old and had been seriously ill. Æthelstan was the heir apparent and, because of his connections, he was ideally placed to reconcile the north and south of the country. Æthelstan died during the reconquest of England or shortly after. The cause of his death is not recorded in our extant sources. However, it is apparent from his will that he presumed that his brother, the Ætheling Edmund, would be the natural successor to their father as king. Later events demonstrate that this was probably the hope and expectation of the political leaders of the north of England as well, as they gathered at Oxford in 1015 to discuss the political future of the country with the king and their counterparts from southern England. So it seemed that Æthelstan’s political legacy would live on in the person of his brother, the Ætheling Edmund.

Æthelred’s actions show his approval and his involvement in the deaths of Sigeferth and Morcar. It is likely that he had been persuaded to accept a hard-line policy advocated by Ealdorman Eadric and Queen Emma. The king must have been convinced that Morcar and Sigeferth were dangerous and deserved to be killed, but their deaths and the king’s actions after their deaths alarmed and alienated the people of the Danelaw. These actions were a clear indication that the party of Eadric and Emma was in the ascendant. Æthelred was an old man and was subject to serious illnesses. Eadric and Emma wanted Emma’s son, Edward, to succeed and it seems that Æthelred agreed with them. This, coupled with an attack on northern thegns who were likely to support the cause of the king’s eldest surviving son, the Ætheling Edmund, made Edmund fear for his life. He therefore rebelled, rescued Sigeferth’s widow and fled to the north where he married her. Edmund had probably been married previously but we have no knowledge about his early relationships nor what became of his first wife, the mother of his sons, Edward and Edmund.436 Then after a short interval, the Ætheling Edmund ventured and took the woman [Sigeferth’s widow] against the king’s will and took her to wife. Then before the Nativity of St Mary [8 September] the ætheling went from the west, north to the Five Burhs, and at once took possession of all Sigeferth’s estates and Morcar’s, and the people all submitted to him.437 So, far from healing the north south divide, the actions of Ealdorman Eadric and King Æthelred at Oxford had exacerbated matters. The north of England supported Æthelred’s eldest surviving son whilst the south of England adhered to King Æthelred’s cause, in effect supporting the party led by Ealdorman Eadric and Queen Emma, who were determined that the Ætheling Edward should be recognised as Æthelred’s heir.

Unfortunately, several factors came together to make this assembly a disaster and it is quite possible that King Æthelred and his chief minister, Ealdorman Eadric, were not acting in good faith when they convened it. The Æthelredian Exemplar says:

The outcome of the debacle at Oxford in 1015 was that England was close to a state of civil war with the country divided and a dispute over the succession when the old king should die. This situation played into King Cnut’s

In this year was the great assembly at Oxford, and there Ealdorman Eadric betrayed Sigeferth and Morcar, the leading

434 The Danelaw was referred to as the land of the ‘Five Burhs’ [Lincoln, Stamford, Leicester, Nottingham, and Derby]. ‘Seven’ (seofon) must have featured in the Æthelredian Exemplar since the word is copied into the extant versions of ASC CDE. Various attempts have been made to explain the additional two burhs, but I am inclined to believe that it is a mistake made by the author of this annal, who refers to ‘Five Burhs’ only 62 words later in this annal. 435 ASC CDE s.a. 1015. 436 Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 137 and note 80. 437 ASC CDE s.a. 1015.

432 Keynes, Diplomas, p. 267. One of the copies of Æthelstan’s will is annotated to show that he died in 1015, but this is a late amendment and Keynes’ arguments are entirely persuasive, superseding the note in Whitelock, Wills, p.167. 433 The Will is number XX in Whitelock, Wills, pp. 57-63 with notes on pp. 167-74. The Will’s Sawyer reference is S.1503.

66

Triumph and Disaster: 1014 – 1016 hands. He had established his control over Denmark and ensured that his father’s alliance with Eric of Lade, the ruler of Norway, was secure. He was now joined by Thorkell the Tall who deserted the English court after the Council of Oxford.438 Thorkell’s position had become untenable. He was in command of King Æthelred’s mercenary force and there was every possibility that it would be used against the peoples of the Danelaw who were supporting the Ætheling Edmund. He was in a position to make his peace with King Cnut by providing valuable advice about the state of politics in England, where best to attack and, above all, he was able to promise that the Scandinavian mercenary force he had commanded in England could be persuaded to come over to Cnut’s side if King Cnut were prepared to reinstate them and Thorkell into his favour.439 With Thorkell’s help, Cnut was able to launch an invasion of England in 1015 to assert the title to the throne that he had inherited from his father.

Once more the Æthelredian Exemplar is probably omitting information and being less than honest. It is apparent that there was a party of King Æthelred’s supporters that wanted to patch up relations between the king and his eldest surviving son so that forces from the north could unite with their own forces to defeat the Danish invasion. It is not possible to analyse exactly what happened, but it is apparent that a rapprochement between the king and the Ætheling Edmund did not suit Ealdorman Eadric and Queen Emma. It is likely that they were able to use their influence over the king to overcome the attempt and the outcome was that the Ætheling Edmund, fearing betrayal at the hands of his enemies, Eadric and Emma, maintained his army in the north and awaited the outcome of events in the south. It is also likely that the West Saxons submitted to Cnut and supplied his army with horses before Eadric opened negotiations with King Cnut. The ‘40 ships’, mentioned in the annal, was Æthelred’s mercenary army, most of which had remained in England when Thorkell had returned to Denmark. According to the Encomium, Thorkell was confident that this mercenary force would join Cnut when he invaded England,443 so Eadric’s involvement in its defection may have been significantly less than the Æthelredian Exemplar states.

Then at that same time King Cnut came to Sandwich, and then turned at once round Kent into Wessex, until he reached the mouth of the Frome, and then (he) ravaged in Dorset, in Wiltshire and in Somerset. Then (at that time) the king lay sick at Cosham.440

After Eadric’s defection, there was a period of great confusion, which is apparent from a reading of the Æthelredian Exemplar annal for the year 1016. In January, King Cnut and his here, accompanied by Ealdorman Eadric, crossed the River Thames from Wessex into Mercia at Cricklade and ravaged in Warwickshire. Then the Ætheling Edmund summoned an English fyrd. Some contingents assembled but its leaders refused to march against the enemy without King Æthelred and the fyrd from London. So the English contingents were dispersed. Then the English fyrd was summoned again, this time on the authority of the king, and King Æthelred joined it with his Londoners. There was an attempt to reconcile King Æthelred and his son, the Ætheling Edmund, but the attempt foundered because the king was persuaded that his son intended to betray him and seize the throne. As a result, King Æthelred returned to the safety of the burh of London with the London contingent. The outcome of the failed negotiations was that the Ætheling Edmund judged that Queen Emma and Ealdorman Eadric were greater threats to him than King Cnut. Civil war was the result:

The fact that Cnut chose to invade Wessex, rather than the northeast, possibly reflects Thorkell’s advice. Thorkell knew how the north felt about Cnut’s withdrawal from England in 1014 and he knew that the Ætheling Edmund had established himself in the north and could rely upon the loyalty of its leaders at that time. However, Wessex was a different matter. The alliance of the Ealdorman of Mercia with the Norman queen, Emma, was not necessarily to the liking of the people of Wessex. It underlined their loss of political influence and was a further threat to the relative economic power of the region. So, although there was some resistance, Cnut was able to establish himself there with relative ease.441 Matters continued to get worse for the English, however: Then Ealdorman Eadric collected a fyrd, (as did) the Ætheling Edmund in the north. When they came together, the ealdorman wanted to betray the ætheling, and then they separated without fighting because of this, and retreated from their enemies. And then Ealdorman Eadric seduced forty ships from the king, and then submitted to Cnut; and the West Saxons submitted and gave hostages and supplied the here with horses, and it was there then until midwinter [Christmas].442

Then the Ætheling Edmund rode to Northumbria to (join) Earl Uhtred, and everybody expected that they would assemble a fyrd against King Cnut. Then they led (the fyrd) into Staffordshire and into Shropshire and to Chester, and they ravaged on their side and Cnut on his (side). (Cnut) then took himself out through Buckinghamshire into Bedfordshire, from there to Huntingdonshire, and so into Northamptonshire, along the fen to

438

Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 131-3. Campbell, Encomium, Bk. II, c. 3. ‘Reinstate’ because they had defied Cnut’s father by remaining in England and taking service with King Æthelred in 1012. 440 ASC CDE s.a. 1015. 441 Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 135-6. 442 ASC CDE s.a. 1015. 439

443

67

Campbell, Encomium, Bk. II, c. 3.

The Reign of Æthelred II Stamford, and then into Lincolnshire; then from there into Nottinghamshire and so to Northumbria towards York. When Uhtred learned this, he left off his ravaging and hastened northwards, and submitted then out of necessity, and all the Northumbrians with him. And he gave hostages. And nevertheless he was killed and Thurcytel, Nafena’s son with him. And then after that the king (Cnut) put Eric into Northumbria as earl, just as Uhtred had been. And afterwards (King Cnut) took himself southward by another route, keeping to the west, and then the whole here came to the ships before Easter. And the atheling Edmund went to London to his father. And then after Easter, King Cnut turned with all his ships towards London.444

the people there to accept him as king. It is also likely that he was, in part, successful. However, the armed forces in the burhs remained loyal to Queen Emma. Her ally, Eadric, was with King Cnut’s army, as was Thorkell the Tall who had been her friend until his defection, and she was negotiating with Cnut, who must have seemed less formidable to her and her interests than her enemy, the Ætheling Edmund.448 The Æthelredian Exemplar disguises these conflicting interests in a partial disclosure of what occurred, as King Cnut and his here approached the burh of London: Then it happened that King Æthelred died before the ships arrived. He ended his days on St. George’s day [23 April], and he had held his kingdom with great toil and difficulties in his life. And then, after his end, all the witan who were in London and its inhabitants chose Edmund as king, and he stoutly defended his kingdom while his life lasted. Then the ships came to Greenwich at the Rogation days [7 – 9 May], and within a little while turned to London. And then the here dug a great ditch on the south side [of the River Thames] and dragged their ships to the west side of the bridge. And then afterwards (they) surrounded the burh with a dyke, so that no man could go in or out, and frequently attacked the burh, but they [the Londoners] bravely withstood them. King Edmund had previously gone out and he then took possession of Wessex, and all that people submitted to him.449

Edmund and Uhtred chose to campaign in Mercia so that it was Eadric’s lands that suffered damage. However, King Cnut had no reason to defend Mercia and he took his army across into the eastern counties and from there launched an attack on Northumbria. Edmund and Uhtred decided to divide forces and, rather than fight King Cnut, Earl Uhtred hastened back to Northumbria and negotiated its surrender in order to save his lands from further devastation. Cnut accepted Earl Uhtred’s surrender but he had no reason to trust the earl. Uhtred had been one of Swein Forkbeard’s leading allies in England. He must have been with the court when Swein died and would have been one of the first to recognise Cnut’s accession as king. The fact that he was back in favour with King Æthelred in 1014 suggests that he made an early submission and that King Cnut would have had good cause to feel that Earl Uhtred had betrayed him. How Uhtred was killed is uncertain,445 although Cnut no doubt instigated the killing. It would have been out of character for King Cnut to allow such a man a second chance to betray him. There is a later northern tradition that the manner of Uhtred’s death started a northern blood feud that lasted for the next sixty years.446

The Æthelredian Exemplar refers to Edmund as ‘king’. However, he was only the leader of a faction and there were two others with claims on the English throne; one was King Cnut, the other was Emma’s son, the Ætheling Edward. Edmund left London because he feared that his army would be trapped between King Cnut’s forces and the forces of Queen Emma, which were in the burh of London. The Chronicle of Thietmar of Mersburg informs us that Queen Emma was negotiating with Cnut at this time and was offering to betray Edmund in return for a peace agreement.450 After Edmund escaped from London, Cnut commenced a siege. The Liðsmannaflokkr or ‘Song of the men of the host’ provides a Scandinavian view of this siege and the ‘Lady’ (Queen Emma) who was defending the burh of London against the Scandinavian liðs.451 It is evident that the widowed Queen Emma was the focus of resistance to the Scandinavian army which

Although Edmund and his army went to London, most of his men would have been encamped outside the burh at London. The king was still suspicious of his son and the burhs of London and Southwark, and London Bridge, which joined them, were garrisoned by forces loyal to the king and to Queen Emma.447 It is possible that Edmund knew that his father was dying when he went to London and that he hoped to persuade

448

Warner, Thietmar of Merseburg, Bk. 7, cc. 40-1, pp. 335-6. ASC CDE s.a. 1016. Warner, Thietmar of Merseburg, Bk. 7, cc. 40-1, pp. 335-6. 451 See Liðsmannaflokkr in Ashdown, English and Norse Documents relating to the Reign of Ethelred the Unready, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930. Ashdown does not recognise that Queen Emma is the ‘lady’ and ‘widow’ referred to in this ‘song of the men of the host’, because her role in the defence of London during the year 1016 was not recognised until recently. See Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 138-41.

444

449

ASC CDE s.a. 1016. 445 A late addition to ASC C says that Ealdorman Eadric was involved, but this is unlikely. This accusation may have originated in the lost Life of King Edmund Ironside. 446 Fletcher R. Bloodfeud: Murder and Revenge in Anglo-Saxon England, Allen Lane, 2003. Also, Higham, The Death of Anglo-Saxon England, Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1997, pp. 64-5. 447 The situation in London is explained in Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, p. 138.

450

68

Triumph and Disaster: 1014 – 1016 threatened the burhs of London and Southwark, having made a ditch around the landward side of Southwark and then a dyke around the landward side of London.

the currency and reduce the premium to a more acceptable level. However, this attempt at fiscal correctness was frustrated by the disaster that overtook the English fleet and the failure of English fyrds to overcome the invading Scandinavian here. When another geld was paid in 1012 it was made with an issue known as ‘Last Small Cross’, which was issued at a premium of 88 pence.453 The activities of the here and the enormous geld payment must have had a severe impact upon the economy of the southern provinces.

Economic difficulties Until the great invasion, which commenced in the year 1006, England had enjoyed a long period of increasing prosperity, with an associated increase in population and trade. The economic prosperity of the country goes a long way towards explaining the political stability of England. The north of England had gained in cohesion since the submission of the Northumbrians to the West Saxon monarchy in 954, partly because the peoples of Northumbria and the Danelaw had common trading and cultural affinities with Scandinavia. The peoples of the north of England had gained disproportionately from the increase in trade, wealth and population and so had continued to remain loyal to the West Saxon house of Cerdic even though it was based in the Thames Valley and the king and his chief advisers sometimes showed their bias against ‘Danes’ who has moved into English Mercia.

The north of England, which had been spared from some of the worst excesses of the invading here in the early years, suffered invasion and the destruction of fortified burhs in this latter period as well as suffering the burden of increased taxation. The payment of heregeld in 1012 did not bring an end to Æthelred’s financial demands on the provinces, because his agreement with Thorkell the Tall, by which Æthelred employed another Scandinavian mercenary army to defend England, meant that there was to be heavy taxation for the foreseeable future. Political and military failure, high taxation, the disruption of their trade and the destruction of their burhs alienated the people of the north of England from their West Saxon ruler, with the result that they supported King Swein Forkbeard’s invasion of England in 1013. Swein’s unexpected death was a further disaster for the north of England, and, as we have seen, its political leaders had to make their peace with King Æthelred, and help the king to pay the mercenary forces which had been used against them.

There were various measures of wealth, such as land, cattle and slaves. Gold was the material of choice for expressing ‘financial’ wealth and this could be displayed on the person in the form of rings and ornament. The government used silver as the basis for its currency transactions. Thus, it appointed moneyers whose task it was to create silver pennies in a format and according to an average weight that was dictated by a central government, which enforced its rules under the sanction of vicious penalties. The silver pennies were paid to the government to meet the tax and other financial commitments, such as food rents and the proceeds of justice, which the nobles, clergy and ordinary people owed to the king. The king’s government could either melt down the silver pennies or use them as currency to purchase materials, food, ships and weapons, and there was a ready demand for silver and pennies throughout the provinces because pennies were needed to make payments to the government. In economic terms, it is likely that the percentage of money and its speed of circulation into and out of government hands was no less than it is today in the 21st century.452

Death of King Æthelred King Æthelred died on 23 April 1016, having reigned for thirty-eight years. In the early part of his reign his people had enjoyed a period of increasing prosperity. The king enjoyed universal support and was a unifying influence in Northumbria, the Danelaw, Mercia and Wessex, though he spent much of his time in the Thames Valley. He was recognised as ruler of all the peoples of Britain in his charters and there was probably much substance in this claim. It was external influences which directed Scandinavian invaders to Britain. King Æthelred, with the support of his Witan, dealt with the problems occasioned by invasions in a manner which would have been recognised by his ancestors since the time of Alfred the Great. He dealt with the invasions partly by opposing them and partly by settling Scandinavian mercenaries on English territory from where they were employed in extending English influence throughout the British Isles and in deflecting further invasion forces. When this system broke down his own armies proved sufficient to force King Swein Forkbeard to retreat from England in 1005

As noted in the previous chapter, the government had a method of stimulating the availability of silver by, in effect, allowing the people who brought silver to the moneyers to profit by being given a ‘premium’ of extra pennies over and above the 240 pennies to the pound to which they were entitled. The premium was achieved by reducing the average weight of the coins. Coins known as ‘Helmet’, because they depict the king in warlike guise, were issued at a high premium of 64 pence and this may have been associated with the creation of the great English fleet in 1008 to 1009. There is evidence in the issue of coins known as ‘Agnus Dei’ that King Æthelred and his ministers were trying to avoid a devaluation of 452

453

‘Last Small Cross’, was originally issued with a premium of only 8 pence to a pound of silver; but the payment of 48,000 pounds to a Scandinavian army in 1012 and payments of heregeld in 1013 and 1014 increased the requirement for coins so the premium in the issue of ‘Last Small Cross’ was very greatly increased.

Appendix 3: Fiscal policy, below.

69

The Reign of Æthelred II without receiving a geld. This was one of the military highlights of Æthelred’s reign.

Unfortunately for Emma, she and her son had no strong support beyond the immediate environs of London. Her military commander, Ealdorman Eadric, had aligned himself with King Cnut in order to fight their common enemy, King Edmund. Without an army in the field, Queen Emma was forced into a diplomatic contest in which she attempted to play King Edmund off against King Cnut by opening negotiations for an alliance with them alternately. This course was an essential strategy as each of these kings, in turn, brought an army to London and threatened to take the burh by force. She had the advantage of having friends in King Cnut’s camp whom she could trust to some extent: Ealdorman Eadric, who was important to Cnut because he controlled an English fyrd raised from the Mercian regions, and Thorkell the Tall, who was Cnut’s military commander but who remained sympathetic to Queen Emma from the time when he served Æthelred and Emma as a mercenary.455 She also had the advantage that the Anglo-Saxon opposition to a Danish conquest wanted reconciliation between King Æthelred’s sons, King Edmund and the Ætheling Edward. Unfortunately, for Emma it was increasingly obvious that she could not trust King Edmund and that her life and that of her son would be threatened if he were successful. For most of the period it must have seemed to her that she was similarly threatened by King Cnut’s success. So she battled on with her limited military resources to make her son king keeping control of the burh of London, which was strategically essential to the other two contenders for the throne.

The period 1006 to 1012 saw a massive sustained invasion of the country. Yet Æthelred’s peoples sustained their opposition to the invaders and remained united under his rule. When Æthelred reverted to a policy of employing a mercenary force to protect England from further invasion, he had the approval of all his Witan. It should not be overlooked that he was respected by the Scandinavian invaders as well as by the peoples he ruled. Great Viking leaders such as Olaf Tryggvason, Thorkell the Tall and Olaf Haraldson supported him with steadfast loyalty even when his own fortunes were at their nadir. There are few historical instances of a king, driven from his country, returning as a triumphant conqueror. The Council of Oxford, which Æthelred convened to regulate his rule of the country following his return from exile, was attended by nobility from all the provinces. Unfortunately, it was a changed Æthelred who returned from exile. He had reason to feel that the leading nobles of the northern provinces had betrayed him when they changed their allegiance to Swein Forkbeard in 1013; some of them had attended his court and witnessed charters only a few months previously. It may be that he had become embittered by exile, age and illness. In contemplating who might succeed him, he was too heavily influenced by his wife, Queen Emma, and his leading ealdormen, Eadric. If he had been well enough to assert his independence he might still have maintained the unity of his kingdom, for his return from exile had been greeted with joy. In the event, his support of a faction led by Eadric and Emma against the supporters of his eldest surviving son, Edmund, brought about a civil war in England, drove his mercenary commander, Thorkell, away from the country and encouraged an invasion by King Cnut. He was unwise to follow the advice of Eadric and Emma at this time and his consequent actions were disastrous. It may be that in this final course of action he earned his epithet unræd – ‘illcounselled’ or ‘unready’ – but it is an unfair reflection on the entirety of Æthelred’s thirty-eight year reign.

During the six months between the death of King Æthelred in April 1016 and the death of his eldest son, Edmund, in November 1016 there was a civil war in England between the three contending claimants for the throne.454 Queen Emma and forces loyal to her and her son, Edward, held the burhs at London and Southwark and controlled the river access to the Thames Valley. Control of London was strategically essential to the success of any of the contenders.

King Edmund’s situation was hardly more enviable than Emma’s. England north of Watling Street supported his candidature for the English throne but the south of England was ambivalent about his succession. Had it not been for the opposition of Ealdorman Eadric and Queen Emma he would probably have been recognised as his father’s heir during King Æthelred’s lifetime. Following Æthelred’s death, according to the Æthelredian Exemplar, the people of London would have been happy to accept him as king. We must, of course, make allowance for the obvious bias in Edmund’s favour of the writer of the Chronicle when we assess the value of this comment. But acceptance by the people of London was of little practical value to Edmund while Queen Emma’s armed forces controlled the burhs of London and Southwark. When Edmund became aware that Emma was negotiating with King Cnut, he was forced to flee from London to the comparative safety of Wessex. Similarly, when Cnut was at London he too was forced to flee when Edmund approached the city because he feared being trapped between an English fyrd and the forces defending the burh of London. Thus, Queen Emma was able to play off each of her son’s rivals against the other.

454 The events are not described here in detail. In a book about the reign of King Æthelred II it is an important postscript but a detailed analysis would serve to give an unbalanced view of Æthelred and his reign. However, the Civil War of 1016 is part of a fascinating period of history for which there is much source information and which deserves detailed exposition and assessment.

455 The friendship between Thorkell and Emma continued over many years. With the exception of Cnut, he is the person most often mentioned by name in the Encomium Emmae Reginae, which was written at Emma’s behest.

Epilogue: English Civil War in 1016

70

Triumph and Disaster: 1014 – 1016 Ealdorman Eadric and his fyrd. Cnut had a victorious though somewhat depleted army and his commander was Thorkell, a man who was trusted by both sides. He undoubtedly convinced Cnut that a negotiated settlement was in his best interests and, because Queen Emma trusted him, Thorkell was able to broker a settlement by which:

Edmund decided to seek acceptance by the English through a military solution to his problems and over a period of several months he and his forces gained an ascendancy over the forces of King Cnut. The diplomatic highpoint in his campaign was Ealdorman Eadric’s acceptance that Edmund’s success appeared so likely that it was politic for the Eadric to change sides. Thus, King Edmund gained the support of Ealdorman Eadric and his forces were greatly augmented by the addition of an English fyrd drawn from the Mercian regions and under Eadric’s command. Thus encouraged, Edmund forced Cnut into a great battle at Ashingdon; but what should have been his ultimate success in battle turned into a disaster when Eadric’s fyrd withdrew from the battlefield at the last moment, an action that ensured a great victory for King Cnut.

• • • • • •

Eadric himself was in an unenviable position. Ideally, he would have liked the Ætheling Edward to succeed King Æthelred so that he could have continued in his role of ‘power-behind-the-throne’, exercising his influence over Queen Emma and her young son in much the same way as he had influenced King Æthelred. He and Edmund had been enemies and each had reason to fear for his life if the other ruled England. Although there were stories that he had connived with King Cnut to betray Edmund at the Battle of Ashingdon, his actions are entirely understandable. His defection ensured that King Edmund would not destroy Cnut as a rival. It also meant that his Mercian fyrd remained intact whilst the other two armies were severely depleted during the battle. This gave Eadric the power to act as arbitrator between Cnut and Edmund after the battle. This he did, using his influence to divide power between the two rivals, without weakening Queen Emma’s position. She remained in control of the burhs at London and Southwark and both Cnut and Edmund were forced to negotiate with her for the use of the river facilities on the Thames.

Cnut was recognised as king of all England, Emma became Cnut’s wife, Any sons of Cnut and Emma were to be given precedence over the sons of Cnut’s first marriage,456 Emma’s children by King Æthelred were allowed to retire to Normandy, Eadric was recognised as ealdorman of Mercia, Cnut’s military commanders, Eric of Lade and Thorkell the Tall, were recognised as earls of Northumbria and East Anglia respectively.

Though Cnut kept faith with Queen Emma, he soon broke his agreement with regard to Eadric, who was killed a few months later together with other northern leaders457 who might have threatened Cnut’s security.458 The agreement between Cnut and Emma completed the Danish Conquest of England and was the foundation of a long period of rule by an Anglo-Danish establishment.459

Cnut was campaigning in an alien land. His army of Scandinavian adventurers had been augmented by some local English forces and it received significant reinforcement when Cnut was joined by Eric of Lade with his Norwegian liðs. However, the losses at Ashingdon were particularly serious to Cnut because of the difficulty of raising fresh forces. His rival, King Edmund, had been defeated but had survived and was capable of raising another English fyrd. Ealdorman Eadric had taken up an independent position with his Mercian fyrd, which, in effect, meant that Queen Emma had an army in the field as well as control of the burh at London. After the Battle of Ashingdon, a temporary division of England, north and south, between Cnut and Edmund, counted for very little in the long term since it was obvious that war would again break out between the rival contenders for the throne of all England.

456 Their son, Harthacnut, became king of Denmark and, subsequently king of England. Neither Emma nor Cnut was ‘English’ and Denmark, with its key position for controlling trade in the western Baltic and its potential for alliances and aggrandisement, would have seemed particularly important to them. For the succession to Cnut and the inheritance of his three sons by two marriages, see Howard I. Harthacnut, The Last Danish King of England and Howard I. ‘Harold II: A Throne-worthy King’ in Harold II and the Bayeux Tapestry, ed. Gale R. Owen-Crocker, Woodbridge, The Boydell Press, 2005, pp. 3552. 457 When Cnut became king, he was careful not to punish Archbishop Wulfstan for his disloyalty in returning his allegiance to King Æthelred. This was against Cnut’s usual inclination; but Cnut did not want to make another English martyr like St Ælfheah. So, Wulfstan was the only ‘disloyal’ leader of the English to escape with his life when Cnut returned to power. 458 ASC CDE, s.a. 1017. 459 For an evaluation of the Anglo-Danish control of England during the fifty years between the deaths of King Edmund in 1016 and King Harold II in 1066, see Howard, Harthacnut, The Last Danish King of England and Howard, ‘Harold II: A Throne-worthy King’, pp. 35-52. For the fiscal implications of the Civil War and Cnut’s conquest, see Appendix 3, Fiscal policy, below.

King Edmund’s unexpected death, which occurred at the end of November 1016, altered matters significantly. It meant that there were only two contenders for the throne: Edward who was only a youth and King Cnut. Emma and Edward might count to a limited extent on the support of

71

6 Æthelred: The Posthumous History Æthelred’s reign was a disaster and that this was due in part to the psychological damage caused by the revulsion of the English nation at the manner of King Edward’s death.461 Wrestling with this problem, Professor Keynes has written about Æthelred:

Fact and Fiction King Æthelred II reigned for 38 years from June 978 until April 1016. At a time when average life expectancy was significantly less than it is today, this was an extraordinarily long reign towards the end of which there can have been very few of his subjects who could remember any other king.

For he has acquired one of the poorest reputations of medieval English kings, and his reign is synonymous with national degeneracy, characterized especially by treachery and incompetence at the highest levels of society; … he is such a familiar creature of popular tradition that it is now difficult to conceive of him outside the context of the myths that have developed around his name, and to judge him and the quality of his rule except in terms derived from them.462

Leaving aside the political difficulties experienced during the short reign of Edward the Martyr, England enjoyed a very long period of peace and increasing prosperity during the reigns of Æthelred’s uncle and father and for much of Æthelred’s own reign. If Æthelred had died in 1005 or a few years earlier his reign must have been remembered as one of the most prosperous in a thousand years of history. Peace in England could be contrasted with events in Continental Europe, where, despite increasing economic prosperity, the times were anything but peaceful.

Negative and denigratory assessments of Æthelred and his reign rely heavily on eleventh and twelfth century sources, which are demonstrably biased. The sources are quoted in this chapter or in earlier chapters, but even a brief consideration of the background to King Æthelred’s reign makes the traditional view untenable. Anyone trying to set the record straight is following in good footsteps. As early as 1978, the papers read at a conference to celebrate the millenary anniversary of King Æthelred’s accession made it apparent that there was much progress on many fronts during his reign.463 At that conference, Keynes addressed the subject of Æthelred’s reputation directly in a paper entitled ‘The Declining Reputation of King Æthelred the Unready’ and he followed this, in the next year, with his seminal book, The Diplomas of King Æthelred the Unready which called into question Æthelred’s unfortunate reputation by setting his reign in context and tracing its development through a detailed examination of charters and witness lists.

However, historians must not fall into the temptation of writing about ‘what ifs’, and the final years of Æthelred’s reign were blighted by invasions and the conquest of England by a foreign king. Even then, it should be observed that King Æthelred is one of the few kings who, having been driven into exile, have mounted a successful re-conquest of his country. But fate did not permit his story to end with the re-conquest. Instead he died nearly two years later, leaving his kingdom embroiled in civil war with three contenders for the throne. Æthelred has a place in English history as one of the worst of her many monarchs. That reputation is not deserved on the basis of an analysis of his reign such as that provided in the preceding chapters of this book. His reputation was, in fact, destroyed by a series of political circumstances after his death and by the deliberate manipulation of the history of his reign. No account of Æthelred’s reign can be complete without an explanation of how his unfortunate and enduring reputation came about.

Essentially, there are two reasons for King Æthelred’s unfortunate reputation. The first is that Æthelred’s final ten years in power was one of the most disastrous decades in English history. It started with an invasion by a great Scandinavian army464 and it ended in a period of civil war that was fought between several contending parties, each eager to provide a successor to King Æthelred.465 The second reason is that the whole of King Æthelred’s thirty-eight-year reign is heavily disguised by layer upon layer of political propaganda. There was benign propaganda created during Æthelred’s reign

The Legends of King Edward ‘the Martyr’ and King Æthelred ‘the Unready’ One way of appreciating the development of the legend of King Æthelred ‘the Unready’ and his unfortunate reign is to follow the contrasting development of the legend of King Edward ‘the Martyr’.460 The progress of the two legends runs in parallel and they impact upon each other since there remains a perception in academic circles that

461

For example, see Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 373 – 4. Keynes, ‘Declining Reputation’, pp. 227 – 29. 463 Hill D. (ed.), Ethelred the Unready: Papers from the Millenary Conference, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 59: 1978. 464 ASC C D E s.a. 1006 and Chapter 4, above. 465 ASC C D E s.aa. 1014 – 16 and Chapter 5, above. 462

460 My account of King Edward’s death is derived from a paper I read to the Manchester Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies in April 2002, entitled ‘King Edward the Martyr: when, why and how did he die? The problem and a proposed solution.’

72

Æthelred: The Posthumous History •

which, ironically, was subsequently turned against him; there was adverse propaganda created during the period of civil war, during the Anglo-Danish hegemony that followed the civil war and, later still, after the Norman Conquest. These layers of propaganda are explained here through an examination of the historical development of the legends.

•

The cult of a martyred king

•

Ironically, it was King Æthelred and his ministers who instigated the process of propaganda, which raised King Edward to the sainthood as ‘Edward the Martyr’. The principal sources for this propaganda are of a contemporary nature or were created about the turn of the tenth century when Æthelred was a powerful and successful king in his prime. They are listed in Illustration 5.

• •

•

5. Early sources for the development of the legends466 Contemporary information (978 – 980): ASC A, annal s.a. 978 Likely Provenance: Winchester. The annal was probably written in the early eleventh century; based on an earlier source.

•

ASC C, annals s.aa. 978, 979 Likely Provenance: Abingdon. The annals were added to the exemplar of ASC C in or after 1017. These annals include contemporary elements and early eleventh century elements.

•

Æthelred’s prime (995 – 1005): Life of Dunstan by ‘B’ Likely Provenance: Canterbury. Late tenth century; probably written in or after 995.

Life of Oswald by Byrhtferth of Ramsey Likely Provenance: Ramsey. Early eleventh century; probably written, wholly or in part, by 1006.

Life of Dunstan by Adelard of Blandinium

It is clear that King Æthelred and his Witan were promoting the cult of royal saints especially Æthelred’s (half) sister, Edith, and his (half) brother, Edward, at the turn of the tenth century.473 King Edward seems to have been accorded the title of ‘martyr’ because of his youthful innocence when he was killed,474 not because he sacrificed his life specifically in defence of the Christian faith. It was during this period that the Life of Oswald was written. This Life contains much of our early

Likely Provenance: The monastery of Blandinium in Flanders. This Life was based on the earlier Life by ‘B’. It was written for Archbishop Ælfheah of Canterbury, probably between 1006 and 1011.

The development of the cult of Edward, the martyred king, can be traced using the sources in Illustration 5: •

Edward was killed on 10 June 978. This date is derived from the annal for 978 in version A of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and from the Life of Oswald.468 Edward was killed whilst visiting one of the residences of his (half) brother, Æthelred, and his (step) mother, Ælfthryth, according to the Life of Oswald. The Life of Oswald states that the body was neglected and the place of burial unsuitable. Edward’s (half) brother, Æthelred, succeeded him as king in June 978. Æthelred was consecrated in May 979. The month and year is in version C of the AngloSaxon Chronicle and the year is confirmed by versions D and E of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.469 Edward’s body was translated from its original burial place and buried again, with appropriate ceremony, in the churchyard of Shaftesbury Abbey. This was done under the supervision of Ealdorman Ælfhere of Mercia and the Life of Oswald says that Edward’s body was found to have been preserved just as it was when it was buried. In 984, miracles were reported from Shaftesbury. The Life of St Oswald says: ‘when twice two years had passed, and two added after that, so many signs of miracles were experienced at his tomb, that nobody could adequately describe them like they were.’ Twice two plus two is six and six years after Edward’s death brings us to the year 984.470 In a charter dated 1001, Æthelred granted Bradford-on-Avon to the nuns of Shaftesbury,471 noting that his brother’s remains were at Shaftesbury and that miracles had been associated with those remains. The date is significant since, on 20th June 1001, King Edward’s remains were translated again, this time from the churchyard at Shaftesbury to a new tomb within the abbey.472

Edward became king following the death of his father, King Edgar, in July 975.467

467

Appendix I: Chronological analysis. Appendix I: Chronological analysis. 469 Appendix I: Chronological analysis. 470 See Raine, Vita Oswaldi, p. 450. 471 S 899. 472 On the instructions of the king. See Fell, Edward, pp. 12-13 and Keynes Diplomas, pp. 170-1 and note 66. 473 Ridyard, Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 140-75. 474 Raine, Vita Oswaldi, p. 452: qui innocenter erat occisus. 468

466

Editions used include Thorpe B. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle according to the Several Original Authorities, vol. I, Original Texts, Rolls Series, London: Longman, Green, Longman and Roberts, 1861, which provides a ready comparison of the ASC annals; Bately, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for ASC A; Stubbs, Memorials of Saint Dunstan for the Life of Dunstan by ‘B’ and the Life of Dunstan by Adelard of Blandinium; Raine, Vita Oswaldi, for the Life of Oswald.

73

The Reign of Æthelred II information about the development of the cult of King Edward the Martyr.

Wulfstan has had a great influence on many of the sources that have survived from this period and his homiletic style is readily discernable. When England was suffering from Scandinavian invasions in the last decade of Æthelred’s long reign, religious leaders explained them as God’s punishment for the sins of the people; the usual reaction to any kind of disaster at that time. Archbishop Wulfstan of York, who was particularly forceful in denouncing the many sins of the English people, influenced the development of the law to include greater emphasis on religion, prayer and repentance as a means of obtaining divine assistance to overcome the invaders.476

Illustration 5, above, includes the Life of Dunstan, by B and the Life of Dunstan by Adelard of Blandinium, which were written at about the same time as the Life of Oswald. These sources say nothing about the death of King Edward. This is important because later sources, which are derived directly from them, have a great deal to say about it. As will be seen, below, the later sources are instrumental in developing the legend, and also in denigrating King Æthelred, but the relevant passages have no foundation in the originals upon which they are based. At this early stage in the development of the legend of King Edward the Martyr, King Æthelred was enjoying economic, political and military successes and the cult of royal saints, particularly his (half) sister, Edith and his (half) brother, Edward, further increased his prestige.

The earliest extant version of Archbishop Wulfstan’s homily known as Sermo Lupi ad Anglos was probably written in 1014. It blames the English people for neglecting God and His Church and says that they are themselves responsible for the many misfortunes that have befallen the country. It includes a passage in which Wulfstan blames the people for betraying their lords, reminding them that their king, Edward, had been killed, his body burned and his murder left unpunished,477 and that their king, Æthelred, had been driven from the land.

God’s punishment on a wicked nation The principal sources for the intermediate stage in the development of the legendary accounts of the two reigns are set out in Illustration 6. They include sources whose provenance is the civil wars and the Danish Conquest of England.

In 1014, of course, Æthelred was newly returned from exile and Archbishop Wulfstan was keen to regain favour with the king. However, the passage decrying the betrayal of a man’s lord and instancing the enforced exile of King Æthelred was probably too much for Wulfstan’s audience to accept from him. After all, he had been among the leaders who had accepted King Swein Forkbeard into England in 1013. Wulfstan had given practical support to the invaders when, early in 1014, he had anointed a new bishop to the see of London, replacing the bishop who had fled the country to be with Æthelred. So, it is no surprise that, in later versions of Wulfstan’s homily, the reference to King Æthelred’s exile is removed.478

6. Sources for the intermediate stage in the development of the legends475 Civil wars and Danish Conquest of England (1013 – 1017) Sermo Lupi ad Anglos by Archbishop Wulfstan of York The extant versions were composed between 1014 and 1016.

The reference to the death of King Edward, in Wulfstan’s homily, is significant. Archbishop Wulfstan prepared this version of his homily some thirty-six years after Edward’s death and there is circumstantial evidence that he did not know much about it.479 So when he claimed that Edward’s body was burned, he was not, as some historians have thought, disclosing a secret known only to members of the ruling establishment. He was, in fact, questioning whether Edward was a saint. Like Wulfstan, we have seen no evidence in the earliest sources for Edward’s sanctity before death. He had been murdered, but that is not in itself sufficient to make a saint. The writer of the Life of Saint Oswald declared that a voice

ASC D and E annals s.aa. 979, 980 Likely Provenance: Worcester. Composed for the Æthelredian Exemplar [ÆE] in 1016. ASC D was probably copied from ÆE in 1017. The ASC E annals were copied from ÆE via an intermediate exemplar.

There is a common factor in these sources in Archbishop Wulfstan of York. He was responsible for the homily known as Sermo Lupi ad Anglos [Sermon of the Wolf to the English], which makes reference to the killing of King Edward, and he was the sponsor of the Æthelredian Exemplar, which provides evidence and comment about the death of Edward.

476 Particularly the laws known as V, VI, VII and VIII Æthelred, see Robertson, Laws, pp.79-129 and Liebermann, Gesetze der Angelsachsen, vol. I, 236-68. 477 British Library, Cotton Nero A I, fols. 111-12: see Whitelock, Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, pp. 56-7. 478 The reference to Æthelred is in two of the five extant manuscripts of the Sermo, and not in the other three: see Whitelock, Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, p. 6. 479 He was sponsor of the Æthelredian Exemplar, which makes identifiable mistakes over the date of Edward’s death.

475

Editions used include Whitelock D. (ed.), Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, University of Exeter: 1976 and Bethurum D. (ed.), The Homilies of Wulfstan, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957 for the Sermo Lupi ad Anglos by Archbishop Wulfstan; Thorpe, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, for a comparison of the ASC annals; Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, for ASC D.

74

Æthelred: The Posthumous History from Heaven had said that King Edward would be kept in the outer regions of Paradise for five years and in the sixth year miracles were reported by supplicants at his grave. The nuns of Shaftesbury, no doubt encouraged by King Æthelred, had translated King Edward’s remains from the churchyard into their abbey. There, more people had access to the relics and stories of miracles accumulated. However, Wulfstan is suggesting in his Sermo that he is not convinced by these stories. The Christian Creed includes a belief in resurrection after death and the life of the world to come. There was an expectation that human remains should be treated with reverence and buried in consecrated ground to await that resurrection. An indication of sanctity was that the body remained uncorrupted. A recognised test for the authenticity of a saint’s remains was to try to burn and destroy them, since it was thought that God would not permit the remains of his saints to be destroyed. By saying that Edward’s body had been burned, Wulfstan was implying that it had been destroyed, calling into question the sanctity of the dead king and possibly even questioning the king’s hopes of resurrection.480 As it happens, Wulfstan was not a reliable witness, and, as will be observed below, he was soon to change his mind about the king’s sanctity.

exalted him. He was in life an earthly king; he is now after death a heavenly saint. Him, his earthly followers [magas descendants] would not advance (his cause), but the heavenly Father has greatly avenged him. Then the earthly slayers wanted to blot out his memory on earth, but the heavenly avenger has spread abroad his memory in heaven and on earth. Those who would not previously bow to his living body, now bend humbly on their knees to his dead bones. Now we can perceive that the wisdom and intrigues of men and their plans are worthless against God’s purpose.483 If Wulfstan was responsible for this passage, he had changed his mind about King Edward’s sanctity. The passage is the precursor to an account of the afflictions that the English were to suffer in subsequent years because of the unpunished murder of King Edward. The assertion that Edward is a ‘heavenly saint’ adds emphasis to this point. This passage and, indeed, the annals from the Æthelredian Exemplar as a whole do not blame King Æthelred specifically for England’s misfortunes. Wulfstan was supporting Edmund, King Æthelred’s son, and had no wish to undermine support for him. The fear that the sins of the father would be visited on the son was a matter that might turn subjects against their kings. Instead, Wulfstan blames certain English ealdormen for their treacherous conduct, which made it impossible for the English to defeat their enemies.

In April 1016, King Æthelred died leaving three contenders for the throne of England: the Æthelings Edmund and Edward and King Cnut of Denmark. Archbishop Wulfstan gave his support to the Ætheling Edmund and there is persuasive evidence that he ordered the preparation of a version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to include annals covering the years of King Æthelred’s reign and the events of the year 1016 in which Edmund481 emerged as a heroic leader striving to reunite the kingdom. This version of the Chronicle is referred to as the Æthelredian Exemplar in this volume and the annals covering the reign of Æthelred in Versions C D and E of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are derived from it.482 These annals include a homiletic passage, which was written as the annal for 979, and which is extant in Versions D and E of the Chronicle. On grounds of provenance, it is possible that this annal was composed by Archbishop Wulfstan personally. It says:

The annal for 980 in the Æthelredian Exemplar, adds information about the translation of Edward’s body. It says: Here in this year, Ealdorman Ælfhere fetched the holy king’s body from Wareham and brought it with great honour to Shaftesbury.484 The year, 980, agrees with the date in the earlier Life of St Oswald. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Versions D and E twice mention Wareham485 and there is no reason to suspect that Edward was not first buried there. The Passio Edwardi, which will be discussed later, says that there was a proper Christian burial at Wareham.486

979: Here (in this year) King Edward was killed in the evening at Corfesgeat on 18 March, and then he was buried at Wareham without any royal honours. Nor for the English race was a worse deed committed than this was, since they first sought out the land of Britain. Men murdered him, but God

The additions to the legend at this intermediate stage include: •

480 He is also denying the accuracy of the earlier source the Life of Saint Oswald, which had stated that Edward’s body was in an uncorrupted state when Ealdorman Ælfhere translated it to Shrewsbury. 481 Later, Edmund became known as ‘Ironside’, a title for which we first have evidence from the middle of the eleventh century: ASC D s.a. 1057 and Darlington and McGurk (eds.), The Chronicle of John of Worcester, pp. 480-1. In each case, the source material is associated with Bishop Ealdred of Worcester: see Howard, ‘Harold II: A Throneworthy King’, pp. 35-52. 482 See Appendix 2, below.

483

Edward was killed at Corfesgeat.

In the homiletic passage in the ASC D MS, the place of the killing is: ætcorfesgeate. There is a stop as shown here and there is a suggestion of a gap between the ‘s’ and the ‘g’. The year and date of the killing, 18 March 979, is incorrect: see Appendix I: Chronological analysis, ‘10 June 978’. 484 Appendix I: Chronological analysis, ‘980: Translation of the body of King Edward’. 485 In the annal for 979, recte 978, and in the annal for 980. 486 Fell, Edward, King and Martyr, p. 7.

75

The Reign of Æthelred II •

•

•

•

Æthelred Unræd: the denigration of a king

Edward was killed on 18 March 979. This is contradicted by earlier sources, which, taken together, say that he was killed on 10 June 978. The date 18 March may be the date when Edward’s body was translated from Wareham to Shaftesbury, and the author of the annal mistook this commemoration date for an obit. The year 979 may be another confusion by the annalist, who, influenced by the 18 March dating, assumed that Edward’s death occurred just before the consecration of King Æthelred at Easter 979. Edward’s body was burnt. This assertion, by Archbishop Wulfstan, seems most unlikely given that it is contradicted by an earlier source and is contradicted later by a source associated with the archbishop. Edward’s body was first buried at Wareham. This assertion first appears in a source dating some thirty-eight years after the event but there is no evidence to refute it. If he was buried at Wareham, it was possibly in the church there, which has been described as being at this time ‘a handsome church, with side-chapels (porticus) appropriate for burial’.487 God avenged his death. This assertion is in a passage that commences the annals for the reigns of Æthelred and Edmund and, in context, it points to the punishment of the English, during the reign of King Æthelred, because of the unpunished murder of their king; an act which it says was the worst crime committed since the English first came to Britain.

Following the Danish conquest of England by King Cnut, there was a change of emphasis in the story and it was claimed that disasters struck England because King Æthelred himself was being punished for the death of his brother. In this version of the story, God’s punishment is evidence that the West Saxon House of Cerdic had forfeited the right to rule. As a result, God had given the monarchy to the Danish king. The Danes disseminated the charge that King Edward had been murdered in order to make his brother, Æthelred, king of England and that, consequently, England suffered invasions until Æthelred died. Dr Wormald’s dating of the legal requirement that King Edward’s death be commemorated to the year 1018488 indicates that King Cnut had a real interest in using the martyrdom of the young king for political purposes. His title to rule England depended partly on the conquest of England by his father, partly on his own claim to have conquered England, partly on his claim that there had been an agreement with King Edmund that he should succeed to the throne of all England, partly that, through marriage, he had become the (step) ‘father’ of the surviving AngloSaxon claimant to the English throne, the Ætheling Edward. It was useful to Cnut that the old English monarchy should be deemed to have forfeited God’s favour as a result of King Edward’s murder, but, beyond the observation of Edward the Martyr’s day, there is no evidence that King Cnut regarded the matter as very significant.489 7. Sources for the final stage in the development of the legends490

At this stage the cult of Edward the Martyr had been fully developed. We have seen it change from a recording of the murder of a king, through the suggestion that he was a martyr because of his innocence, to the performance of miracles. The nuns at Shaftesbury, with practical encouragement from King Æthelred, translated King Edward’s body from the churchyard to the abbey and actively promoted his cult beyond the confines of the nunnery, to the Royal Court and beyond. Propaganda created during the period of civil war promoted the idea that the people of England were being punished for their sins and that the most heinous crime ever committed by the Anglo-Saxons since their first coming to England had been the murder of the unfortunate Edward the Martyr; a murder that had gone unpunished.

After the Norman Conquest of England (1066 – 1086) Passio Edwardi by ? Goscelin Written c. 1070 – 80. Extant MSS are from the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

History of the Archbishops of HamburgBremen by Adam of Bremen Provenance: Hamburg. The relevant passage in Book II was written c. 1074.

Life of Dunstan by Osbern Provenance: Canterbury. Written c. 1076 – c. 1089. There are many extant MSS, mainly from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

The propaganda, created during the civil war, was supportive of King Edmund. We are meant to understand that the sins of the English had been expiated and that God was allowing them once more to be victorious under the leadership of King Edmund. That view was undermined by the death of Edmund in November 1016, although later writers were happy to acknowledge the heroism of his resistance against his enemies.

487

488 Wormald, ‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, pp. 53-4 and Wormald, Making of English Law, pp. 343-4. 489 Edward’s feast day was given great prominence, however, as evidenced by the many church calendars that included it from early in the eleventh century: Fell, Edward, King and Martyr, pp. xxi - xxv. 490 Editions used include Fell, Edward, King and Marty, for the Passio Edwardi; Tschan, Adam of Bremen: History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen for an English translation of Schmeidler’s 1917 edition; Stubbs, Memorials of Saint Dunstan, for the Life of Dunstan by Osbern.

Swanton, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 123, ASC E s.a. 979 and note

15.

76

Æthelred: The Posthumous History Thereafter, there was no political interest and no significant development in the story of Edward’s martyrdom for over 50 years; not, in fact, until after the Norman Conquest. Illustration 7, above, describes the sources for this final stage in the development of the legends about the (half) brothers Edward and Æthelred.

is unfit to rule by his ineffective direction of the kingdom and his supine and feckless acceptance of the invasions. Æthelred’s mother, Queen Ælfthryth, was the widow of Ealdorman Æthelwold of East Anglia when she married King Edgar. Post Norman Conquest writers were quite happy to denigrate any Anglo-Saxon king, including Edgar, and there is an account, in the Winchester Annals,494 that explains how Edgar contrived Æthelwold’s murder so that he could marry Ælfthryth. If the child was expected to expiate the sins of the parents, there was no difficulty in explaining the disasters of Æthelred’s reign, given such murderous parents! The real difficulty was in explaining a quarter of a century when England prospered under Æthelred’s rule. This was usually attributed to God allowing a respite in the punishment and devastation of England until after the death of St Dunstan.

Even after the Norman Conquest of England, the kings of Denmark continued to assert their title to the English throne and there was a long period, following the Norman Conquest, when England was threatened with invasion and conquest by the nephew of King Cnut, Swein Ulfsson, king of Denmark and then his son, Saint Cnut, who was also king of Denmark.491 It was valuable propaganda for the Danish kings to remind the English people of Edward the Martyr’s murder and to implicate King Æthelred in that murder, so that the Danish Conquest could be seen as ‘a just judgement of God’. It was in this context that King Swein Ulfsson of Denmark probably provided the following information for Adam of Bremen’s History of the Archbishops of HamburgBremen:

In England there was propaganda supporting the Norman conquerors. The Passio Sancti Eadwardi Regis et Martyris was possibly written in the 1070’s by the Anglo-Norman hagiographer Goscelin.495 It is an account of Edward’s life, murder and miracles. According to the Passio, it was Queen Ælfthryth, envious of Edward’s success as a ruler, who plotted his murder in order to substitute her own son, Æthelred, on the throne.

Canute made war on Britain for three years. Aethelred, the king of the English, died while he was being besieged in London, losing his life at the same time as his kingdom. (A footnote in the manuscript adds that Queen Ælfthryth murdered her stepson, the king, and set her own son on the throne.) And this by a just judgment of God; for he had befouled the sceptre with blood for thirty-eight years after his brother died a martyr. Thus he expiated the murder of his brother.492

Osbern’s Life of Saint Dunstan is based upon the earlier work by ‘B’ and Adelard, but it has a lot of political material added to it, often of a denigratory nature in respect of kings Edgar and Æthelred. Osbern’s Life of Saint Dunstan was much copied and influential. In it, he says that Edgar seduced a nun, and fathered Edward by her.496 When Edgar died suddenly and unexpectedly, Dunstan had Edward made king in the face of some opposition. There is a passage that refutes suggestions that Edward was an unworthy king.497 There are many passages which accuse Queen Ælfthryth of complicity in the murder and which denigrate King Æthelred. Such passages are libellous in the extreme and ask us to believe that, at his baptism, Æthelred sullied the font and that Archbishop Dunstan then denounced the baby and prophesied that it would come to a bad end: this in front of his mother and father, Queen Ælfthryth and King Edgar, and all the assembled dignitaries! We are also asked to believe that the same archbishop officiated at the

In 1066, William of Normandy conquered England. For most of his reign, this conquest was far from secure because the kings of Denmark claimed the English throne and there was support for their cause in England, especially in the North.493 Both the Danes and the Normans had an interest in denigrating the Anglo-Saxon royal house of Cerdic and in demonstrating that it was God’s judgement that the house of Cerdic was no longer fit to rule. So this version of the story, including the involvement of Queen Ælfthryth in the murder of her stepson, gained momentum after 1066. Æthelred had been too young in 978 to have been directly involved in the murder of his brother, but, by blaming Queen Ælfthryth for the murder, Æthelred could be seen to be punished by God for the sins of his parent and also because he had benefited directly from the murder and had not sought to punish the guilty parties. In this enhanced version, Æthelred further demonstrates that he

494

Luard, Annales Monastici p. 12. Fell, Edward King and Martyr, p. xx. Stubbs, Memorials of Saint Dunstan, p. xcix, pp. 111 – 12. The Normans had no qualms about denigrating Edgar and Osbern had no difficulty in accepting Edward’s ‘illegitimacy’; after all William the Bastard [later ‘the Conqueror’] was then duke of Normandy and king of England. Subsequent writers were troubled by this passage in Osbern and found evidence that Edward’s mother was not a nun and that Edward was a legitimate son of King Edgar. If Edgar had fathered children in a legitimate union before his marriage to Ælfthryth, he could have ‘retired’ a first wife to an abbey. 497 Stubbs, Memorials of Saint Dunstan, p. 114. It is possible that, in this passage, Osbern is refuting the criticism implied in the Life of Oswald, including: ‘The elder [i.e. Edward] indeed inspired in them all not only fear but even terror; whereby not only with words, but actually with dreadful scourges, and especially his own attendants.’ Raine, Historians of the Church of York, p. 449. 495 496

491 See Howard, ‘Harold II: A Throne-Worthy King’ for the claims and activities of the Danish kings after the Norman Conquest. Swein Ulfsson is sometimes referred to as Swein Estrithsson after his mother, King Cnut’s sister. 492 Tschan, Adam of Bremen: History of the Archbishops of HamburgBremen, Book II, c. liii (51), p. 91. Adam wrote this passage in c. 1074. 493 Howard, ‘Harold II: A Throne-Worthy King’.

77

The Reign of Æthelred II coronation of King Æthelred, described elsewhere as a great and happy occasion, and then denounced Queen Ælfthryth and prophesied498 the downfall of her son because he had waded through blood to the throne: this before the queen and the whole court!

her in bodily presence. But when the King felt that his last day was approaching, he delivered up the reins of government to his son Edward. He, successor of a glorious father, himself glorious, after being consecrated by St. Dunstan, ruled the Kingdom, so long as he lived, with the utmost diligence. But within a few short years of his accession to the throne he was put to death by the shameful treachery of his stepmother and had as his successor his brother Ethelred, that wicked woman’s son, who inherited his kingdom but none of his integrity.

Osbern’s account was much copied and very influential. Other writers, such as William of Malmesbury and Eadmer were influenced by it.499 In these politically motivated accounts, King Æthelred himself is subjected to personal denigration. Thus, William of Malmesbury wrote: The career of his life is said to have been cruel in the beginning, wretched in the middle, and disgraceful in the end; for, in the murder to which he gave his concurrence, he was cruel, base in his flight and effeminacy, miserable in his death.500

This Ethelred, because he had grasped the throne by the shedding of his brother’s blood, was sternly denounce by Dunstan who declared that Ethelred himself would live in blood, that he would suffer invasions of foreign foes and all their horrible oppression and that the Kingdom itself was to be worn again and again by bloody devastations.502

and That I may not be tedious in mentioning severally all the provinces which the Danes laid waste, let it be summarily understood, that out of thirty-two counties which are reckoned in England, they had already overrun sixteen, … In the meantime the king, admirably calculated for sleeping, disregarding these important transactions, would only yawn; and if ever he recovered his senses enough to raise himself upon his elbow, he quickly relapsed into his original wretchedness, either from the oppression of indolence, or the adverseness of fortune. His brother’s ghost also, demanding dire expiation, tormented him. Who can tell how often he collected his army? how often he ordered ships to be built? how frequently he called out commanders from all quarters, and yet nothing was ever effected? For the army, destitute of a leader, and ignorant of military discipline, either retreated before it came into action, or else was easily overcome.501

Eadmer described King Æthelred’s supine response to the Scandinavian invasions: The indolence of the King became known round about and the greed of those outside her borders, aiming rather at the wealth than the lives of the English, invaded the country by sea at one point after another and laid waste at first the villages and cities near the coast, then those further inland and in the end the whole province, driving the inhabitants in wretchedness from their homes. The King instead of meeting them in arms panic-stricken shamelessly offered them money sueing for peace; where-upon they accepted the price and retired to their homes, only to return in still greater numbers and still more ruthless, from renewed invasion to receive increased rewards.503

Writing in the twelfth century, Eadmer summarized the fully developed version of the two legends, which he presented as historical fact:

The denigrators’ problem, that England was well governed and at peace for many years after Æthelred’s succession, is explained away because God would not punish the English whilst St Dunstan lived.

England enjoyed peace and happiness throughout the length and breadth of the land so long as she was fortunate enough to have King Edgar and Father Dunstan with

In these final extracts can be seen the full development of the legend of King Edward the Martyr. It is a fascinating process. Its main features are:

498 In the earlier Life by Adelard there is reference to Dunstan’s prophetic powers, but this is in the context of his death when he enters the company of the angels, the patriarchs, the prophets, the apostles and the martyrs. Stubbs, Memorials of Saint Dunstan, p. 67. 499 Osbern’s version of the story is also to be found in the Chronicle of John of Worcester: Darlington and McGurk (eds.), The Chronicle of John of Worcester, pp. 484-5 in the annal for 1016, as John reflects on Æthelred’s death. 500 Stevenson, William of Malmesbury, p. 144. 501 Ibid. p. 147.

•

502

King Edward, murdered.

an

ineffective

king,

was

Bosanquet G. (trans.), Eadmer’s History of Recent Events in England, London: The Cresset Press, 1964, pp. 3 – 4. Bosanquet, Eadmer’s History of Recent Events in England, p. 4. See also, Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, p. 144 – 6. 503

78

Æthelred: The Posthumous History • • •

conquered, first by the Danes and then by the Normans.

His brother encouraged the development of King Edward’s cult as an innocent martyr and saint. Then, King Edward’s martyrdom was used to explain why God had punished the English with Scandinavian invasions and civil war. Finally, King Edward’s martyrdom, coupled with the denigration of the House of Cerdic in the person of King Æthelred, was used to explain why God had allowed England to be

Although Eadmer’s account is demonstrably wrong, the legendary history is repeated to this day and the lurid details of King Edward’s murder and Æthelred’s failures as a king are still to be found in some popular histories of the English monarchy.

79

Appendix 1: Chronological Analysis quite illogical practice became known as the Florentine convention, after the Italian city-state, and was adopted by churchmen in most of Western Europe when they wanted to use an Annunciation caput anni.505

Importance of Chronological Analysis It should be self-evident that there can be no proper understanding of historical events unless those events are put into a sensible time frame. This is sometimes difficult when studying Anglo-Saxon history because of limitations in our sources. Consequently, events can be placed in an incorrect chronological sequence and misunderstandings can arise. In writing the history of this period a conscious effort has been made to check dates and chronology. The resultant findings have sometimes entailed a significant reappraisal of events.

These explanations probably seem horrendously complicated to the general reader, who may, therefore, sympathise with some historians who have tended to ignore the question of capita anni when dating events from a given annal. Very often there is an assumption that the year commencement in annals of this period is the same as the modern 1 January caput anni for all practical purposes. However, this practice can lead to significant mistakes and consequent misinterpretations of historical events.506 Illustration 8 shows how the capita anni changed over the years 983 to 1014 in four versions of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle.507

The most important source for the period of English history covered in this book is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. There are several versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and they derive information from a variety of sources. Since there was no universal agreement as to when the year should start, ASC annals vary in their year commencement. A ‘year commencement’ is referred to as caput anni [plural: capita anni].

Illustration 8. Capita anni: ASC A, C, D and E 983 to 1014

The ‘indiction year’ commenced in September. There were two indiction dates: 1st September and 24 September. In practice it is rarely possible to distinguish which is being used; hence indiction capita anni are referred to as ‘September’ in this appendix. The indiction year commences in the September preceding the modern calendar year.

ASC A: 983 to 1006 • There are no annals for 985 to 992, 995 to 1000, and 1002 to • •

•

Another caput anni was 25 December, often referred to in the annals as ‘midwinter’, which equates to the Christian Christmas Day. Some chronicles use a Roman 1st January caput anni, which is the same as the modern year commencement date. In practice, it is rarely possible to distinguish a 1st January caput anni from a midwinter caput anni.

1004. There is evidence of a midwinter caput anni in the annals 984, 993, 994, 1001 and 1005. Conclusion: ASC A was following a midwinter caput anni throughout this period. There are no annals 1007 to 1014.

ASC C and D: 983 to 990 • •

•

During the period of history covered by this book a caput anni came into vogue to honour the Virgin Mary; celebrating the Annunciation on the 25 March by beginning the year on that day. Logically, the Annunciation precedes the birth of Christ on 25 December. A date where the Annunciation caput anni precedes Christmas is known as the ‘Pisan convention’ because the Italian city of Pisa adopted this basis of reckoning. In practice it was easier to change a year commencement in a series of annals by allowing the ‘year’ to run on until the following 25 March and there are examples of this practice in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle during the period covered by this book.504 This

There are no annals for 987 and 989. There is evidence of an indiction caput anni in the annals 985 (ASC C only), 988 and 990. Conclusion: ASC C and D were following an indiction caput anni throughout this period.

ASC E: 983 to 989 •

•

There is evidence of a midwinter caput anni in the annals 984, 987 and 989. Conclusion: ASC E was following a midwinter caput anni throughout this period.508

the account well into the spring of 1007, so the annal probably ‘ended’ with the Annunciation (25 March 1007). Thus, this annal ‘year’ stretches over an eighteen-month period. 505 For further explanations and a bibliography on the subject, see Cheney, Handbook of Dates. 506 There is a case study showing the importance of chronological analysis in Appendix 1 of Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, pp. 147-62. 507 The information in Illustration 8 is derived from Howard I. ‘Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions of England: a thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Ph.D. in the Faculty of Arts’: 2000 (copies lodged with the John Rylands University Library, Manchester) Figure 10, p. 89. 508 Annals for 983 to 990 in ASC C, D and E are derived from the Æthelredian Exemplar. The reason why they differ in caput anni usage is discussed in Appendix 2, below.

504

For example the versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which are derived from the Æthelredian Exemplar, commence the annal for 1006 with an indiction caput anni (September 1005). It says that Archbishop Ælfric died in the annal (16 November, 1005); it next describes events ‘after midsummer’, ‘harvest’, ‘became wintry’, ‘after Martinmas’ (11 November, 1006), ‘towards midwinter’ (25 December, 1006), ‘Christmas season’, after which arrangements were made whereby provisions were provided for an invading here – activities which take

80

Appendix 1: Chronological Analysis intention to deceive, but when filling a gap, usually in a church’s or a monastery’s records, the scribes may not necessarily have been setting out to deceive, only to reinforce what they believed to be a proper title.

ASC C, D and E: 990 to 1002 • •

•

There is no annal for 990 in ASC E. There is evidence of an indiction caput anni in the annals 990, 994, 995 and 1002. Conclusion: ASC C, D and E were following an indiction caput anni throughout this period.

Church calendars record dates for the commemoration of important people and this may be helpful in chronological analysis. Unfortunately, it has been customary to deem that a commemoration date is an obit; that is the date of a person’s death. This is often true. However, the commemorative date may be for a burial or the translation of a body to another churchyard or to a grave within a church. Misunderstandings about so-called ‘obits’ have occurred since the earliest times and may misinform our judgement about chronology.

ASC C, D and E: 1003, 1004 and 1005 •

•

The annal for 1002 extends beyond the September end of the indiction year, so a change in caput anni may be intended. However, the annal for 1006 reverts, for one year only, to an indiction caput anni. The capita anni for 1003, 1004 and 1005 are uncertain.

ASC C, D and E: 1006 • This annal has an indiction caput anni but is extended

Because of factors such as these, there is uncertainty about some dates. This will become apparent in the following paragraphs, which aim to provide a reasoned judgement about some important dates affecting our understanding of the chronology of events. It follows that it is the duty of the scientific historian to have a constant regard to chronology when undertaking research with a view to improving the chronological analysis for a period of history, particularly one such as this where the sources are sparse and have so many uncertain features.

beyond the September end of the indiction year and then beyond midwinter; so the following annal, for 1007, has an annunciation (Florentine convention) caput anni.

ASC C, D and E: 1007 to 1013 •

•

There is evidence of an annunciation (Florentine convention) caput anni in the annals for 1007, 1009 and 1010. Conclusion: ASC C, D and E were following an annunciation (Florentine convention) caput anni throughout this period.

ASC C, D and E: 1014 • There is evidence of a midwinter caput anni in this annal.

In the following paragraphs, the abbreviation ‘ASC’ is used for Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the sign ‘/’ represents the exemplar of a version of the ASC: for instance ASC /E is the exemplar of ASC E.

Some other comments about capita anni are necessary. Charters issued during the period of English history covered by this book were usually dated anno domini, ‘in the year of Our Lord’; that is a 25 December caput anni. Confusingly, the words ‘anno dominicae incarnationis’ came to mean the nativity rather than the incarnation (i.e. annunciation) of Our Lord.509 Often, charters are given an indiction caput anni as well. Because the indiction year runs from September to September, the dual dating of a charter provides a more precise dating for its issue. Thus, for example, if the indiction year runs from September 990 to September 991 and the anno domini year (991) runs from 25 December 990 to 25 December 991, the reader should know that the charter was issued between 25 December 990 and September 991. Since Royal charters are a major source of information an understanding of their dating mechanisms is important for chronological analysis purposes. Unfortunately, many charters of this period are known only from copies. This means that they may have been subjected to deliberate or accidental amendment, for example the deliberate abbreviation of a charter’s witness list, or the accidental miscopying of a name or date. Charters were evidence of property rights and it is evident that some of the charters, purporting to be from this period, have been concocted to fill a gap in an owner’s records. Such concoctions may be based in part on genuine originals. Concoctions are sometimes referred to as ‘forgeries’ by modern commentators, a word which implies a deliberate 509

23 November 955: Death of King Eadred There is evidence in ASC versions A B C D E and F. Version A of the ASC, which may be from a contemporary source, says that he died s.a. 955 on St Clement’s day. At this period, the writer of Version A was using a late December (mid-winter) year end, so Version A is saying that Eadred died on 23 November 955. ASC A gives the exact date of death as well as the year but ASC C D and E only provide the year. Version C and B of the ASC are derived from the same exemplar, ASC \C. Version B was probably copied from this exemplar in about the year 1016 and Version C was copied sometime after 1016. They place the death of Eadred s.a. 956. The use of an Indiction year by ASC \C aligns with practice observed in later annals, so the year 956 would start during September 955. The date, 23 November 955, falls within the indiction year September 955 to September 956 so with the annal year 956 ASC C and B can be said to be in agreement with ASC A. Version E of the ASC was copied from an exemplar, ASC \E, after 1016. It places the death of Eadred s.a. 955. The writer of ASC \E was using a late December year-end, a practice observed in later annals until the year 991 when ASC E changes to an Indiction year-end. Thus, ASC E

See Garmonsway, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. xxviii.

81

The Reign of Æthelred II 957 according to the diploma evidence512 except that one charter, S.650, seems to evidence his attendance at court in 958. This charter, S.650 (Birch 1032), has Archbishop Oda witnessing next after the king. There are problems with the dating of this charter: the year A.D. is 958; the indiction year is September 957 to September 958; the regnal year is November 959 to November 960. So there are impossible contradictions in the dating of this charter and, by itself, it should not be taken as persuasive evidence that Oda was alive in 958. Archbishop Oda is recorded as a witness to a charter of King Eadwig, S.658, dated 17 May 959, which is considered ‘doubtful’ by Plummer and ‘suspicious’ by Stevenson. The date is impossible for Oda and very unlikely for King Eadwig (see below). One of the two manuscript copies of this charter omits the sentence containing Oda’s witness.513

aligns with ASC A and there is agreement about the date of the king’s death. Version D of the ASC was copied from the Æthelredian Exemplar, which was derived from various sources including ASC \C and ASC \E. The writer of the Æthelredian Exemplar was probably trying to use an Indiction year-end. His sources told him that Eadred died in 955 (ASC \E) or 956 (ASC \C) but did not provide a date. Being uncertain of the date, he followed ASC \E and recorded the death s.a. 955. If he had indeed being trying to follow an Indiction year-end, he should have recorded the death s.a. 956. Thus, ASC D probably disagrees with ASC A, but, as a derivative source, it should be discounted here. Version F of the ASC was derived indirectly from Versions A and E. It records the death s.a. 955 on St Clement’s Day and so agrees with ASC A that Eadred died on 23 November 955.

John of Worcester states that Oda died in 958, but he is clearly guided in this by an annal he found in ASC D: Darlington and McGurk, John of Worcester’s Chronicle, pp. 408-9. The ASC D annal for 958 indicates that Oda was still alive, stating that he separated King Eadwig from his wife, Ælfgifu, in that year because they were too closely related. This annal was written in c. 1016 but does not derive from the exemplars of ASC C and E, which the writer was using amongst other sources. The exemplar of ASC D had a series of annals about this date from a separate source, but the annal years may be suspect. Professor Whitelock was unhappy about the annal in ASC D for 958, writing ‘If we accept a story in the life of St. Dunstan, this event belongs to 956. In any case 958 is too late.’514

Although the annal evidence is clear, the charter evidence is complicated. Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters describes seven charters of King Eadred which he dates 955 (S. 563 – S. 569), four which he dates 956 (S. 570 – S. 573), one which he dates 957 (S. 574), three which he dates 958 (S. 575 – S. 577). Yet the first charters of Eadred’s successor, King Eadwig, are dated 955 (S. 581 – S. 582). Of Eadred’s charters dated 956: S.570 is dated ‘956 for 953 x 955’ by Sawyer; S.571 has an indiction September 955 to September 956; S. 572 is from Liber Eliensis and Birch notes that its editor gives the charter a date of 955; S.573 has an indiction September 954 to September 955 which is not compatible with the year of grace. Sawyer and Birch suggest ‘956 for ? 955’. Of the Eadred charter dated 957, S.574, Birch suggests that it is a charter of King Eadwig who succeeded Eadred. Of Eadred’s charters dated 958: S.575 has an internal date ‘third year of reign’ which suggests a date of c. 949, although Birch suggests ‘958 for 953 x 956’; both S.576 and S.577 appear to be correctly dated but the dates must be regarded as impossible for ‘Eadred’, so perhaps Birch’s comment against S.574 should be extended to include these two charters – but, other than an expression of surprise at the date, Birch makes no comment.

Though both the evidence in S.650 and ASC D are suspect as regards the year of Oda’s death, the fact that they appear to be independent sources warrants serious consideration of the year 958. However, if we accept the evidence that he died in 958, we must call into question a story, first evidenced in ‘B’s Life of Dunstan but for which we lack charter support, that Bishop Ælfsige of Winchester was translated to Canterbury to succeed Oda but died in the Alps, whilst journeying to Rome for his pallium, in the winter.515 This must be called into question because there is charter evidence that Bishop Byrhthelm had been translated to Canterbury before the end of the year 958 and probably before the death of King Eadwig on 1 October 958 (see below). So either:

2 June 957 (or 2 June 958): Death of Archbishop Oda of Canterbury

•

Archbishop Oda was commemorated on 2 June.510 This is likely to be the date of his death rather than the date of a translation of his body.

•

In a charter dated 9 May 957 King Eadwig granted Archbishop Oda land at Helig.511 So Oda was still alive at that date. However, Oda ceased attending the king during 512

Oda died in 957 to be succeeded by Ælfsige, who died in the winter of 957-8 and was, in turn, succeeded by Byrhthelm during 958, or Oda died in 958 to be succeeded by Byrhthelm that same year and we must reject the story in ‘B’s Life of Dunstan about Bishop Ælfsige of Winchester.

Brooks, Early History, p. 224 and n. 55. See Birch 1046, p. 255 note 7. See Whitelock EHD p. 205 n.6. 515 See Brooks, Early History, p. 238 and n. 98.

510

513

Brooks, Early History, p. 226 and n. 60, quoting Wharton, Anglia Sacra, I, 54. 511 S.646 and Brooks, Early History, p. 224.

514

82

Appendix 1: Chronological Analysis On the evidence available, it is difficult to establish a definitive year for Archbishop Oda’s death. As a working hypothesis it is suggested that he is more likely to have died in 957. The separation of a king from his wife by the archbishop seems an unlikely event given that the same archbishop probably officiated at the wedding, which took place after Eadwig’s coronation. It is possible that the story is derived from a misunderstanding of the story concerning the king being forced to leave his future wife to return to the coronation ceremony, which is in the Life of Dunstan. Whitelock, though she did not reject the story out of hand, rejected the year 958 as being too late. This only leaves the charter, S.650, with its faulty dating mechanism to suggest that Oda lived into the year 958. If we accept that Oda died in 957 it explains why he does not witness charters after 9 May 957 and it leaves time for the unfortunate Ælfsige to be translated to Canterbury and to die in the winter of 957/8 whilst journeying over the Alps to Rome for his pallium.

ASC F, which had access to versions of ASC A and E, chose to follow ASC A in dating Eadwig’s death to the year 958. However, despite having ASC A as a source, it does not provide the exact date of death; this omission may reflect the fact that the writer of ASC F often made a précis of the information before him. The writer of the exemplar of ASC D s.a. 959, probably using an Indiction commencement year starting in September (Sept. 958 to Sept. 959), agrees with ASC A that Eadwig died in 958 but, since ASC D is derived from the exemplars of ASC C and E, both of which record the death s.a. 959, this agreement with ASC A is fortuitous. Sawyer dates all King Eadwig’s charters between 956 and 958 with five exceptions. Those dated before 956 include: •

There is a charter, S.1506, which Sawyer dates 958 without comment. It is the will of Æthelwyrd and commences: Þis is ÆÐELWYRDES cwide mid geðæte Odan ærce bisscopæs … [replacing the letter wynn with ‘w’]. There is no date in the will itself but in a footnote Birch (B.1010) adds ‘Endorsed in hands of the xiith and xiiith centuries: - Anno DCCCC.LVIII. …’ Birch in his introduction to B.1010 wrote: ‘Before A.D. 958’. A later form of the charter (B.1011) has no date. Kemble, in K.477 and K.478, records the will, which has no date, and without the dating endorsement, but he heads the two versions of it ‘ÆÐELWEARD, 958’ without comment. In effect, this undated will does not help to decide in which year Archbishop Oda died.

•

S.581, dated ‘955 for 956’. [Birch 975: no regnal year, indiction is September 955 to September 956, and the year A.D. is shown by Birch as either 955 or 956] Whether 955 or 956, there is no difficulty in the charter being dated within Eadwig’s reign commencing 23 November 955. S.582, dated 955. [Birch 917: the dating is unusual in that there is no indiction, there is no regnal year, and the year A.D. is 955] Though dated 955 the sparse dating information can agree with Eadwig’s reign commencing 23 November 955.

Those dated after 958 include: •

1 October, 958: Death of King Eadwig516 It is customary to record Eadwig’s death as occurring in October 959: Cheney, Handbook of Dates, p. 17. The extant versions of the ASC, with one exception, actually indicate that Eadwig died on 1 October 958 (ASC A, supported as to the year by ASC B and C, using an Indiction commencement year, s.a. 959 (Sept. 958 to Sept. 959). ASC E is the exception and disagrees with ASC A because it records the death s.a. 959 although the writer of its exemplar was apparently intending to use a late December commencement year, as did ASC A at this time. The discrepancy cannot easily be explained. However, the author of the ASC A annal has the support of ASC B C, was closer geographically to the event, and claimed to know the exact date; so his annal has superior authority.

•

•

S.658, dated 959 but considered ‘doubtful’ by Plummer and ‘suspicious’ by Stevenson [Birch 1046: A.D. 959; indiction September 958 to September 959; regnal year November 959 to November 960; 17 May; therefore dated 17 May 959] See the comment above regarding the impossibility of Archbishop Oda witnessing this charter. S.660, dated 959 [Birch 1045: no regnal year, indiction September 958 to September 959, year A.D. 959; therefore dated between late December 958 and September 959]. The year A.D. is ‘DCCCCLIX’ so there is unlikely to be a scribal error, 959 for 958. The charter has been described as ‘authentic’. If so, it is perhaps the only firm evidence that Eadwig lived beyond October 958 – even if only for a few weeks. S.661, dated ‘961 for ?956’[Birch 1009: no regnal year, no indiction, year A.D. 961] Finberg regarded it as authentic, Whitlock as suspicious. Keynes, using the witness list, dates it to 956: Keynes Diplomas, Fig. 6, p. 60.

The first charters of King Edgar, Eadwig’s successor, are dated impossibly early but there are seven charters which Sawyer dates 958 (S. 673 – S. 679). Some of these charters refer to Edgar as king of Mercia (S. 675, 676, 677, 678). S.673 has been described as doubtful or spurious. Sawyer dates two of King Edgar’s charters

516

My chronological analysis, and this date especially, is important to a re-appraisal of Eadwig’s reign based on the charter evidence. An earlier version of this book, presented but not published in 2004, contained an appraisal of the reigns of Eadwig and Edgar. That appraisal is no longer needed because of the publication of Scragg Donald (ed.), Edgar, King of the English, 959-975: New Interpretations, Publications of the Manchester Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies, Manchester: Boydell Press, 2008.

83

The Reign of Æthelred II (S.680 and S.681) to the year 959 and six (S.682 to S.687) to the year 960. The evidence of the charters is substantially supportive of Eadwig’s reign ending in October 958 (excepting the evidence of S.660).

Between September 964 and December 965: Marriage of King Edgar and Queen Ælfthryth The ASC D annal for 965 states that King Edgar took Ælfthryth as his queen; she was Ealdorman Ordgar’s daughter. The ASC D source is uncertain, although it is possibly from the exemplar of ASC E. The annal is not in the extant version of ASC E but it is in ASC F, which is derived from an earlier version of ASC E and ASC A and there is no reference to the marriage in ASC A. The ASC F annal is in the margin and it is not clear which annal year is intended.

The Chronicle of Æthelweard says of Eadwig: ‘For indeed he ruled [held (the kingdom)] for four years (and was) loved throughout the kingdom [or ‘period of his kingship’]’.517 This chronicle dates events occasionally but usually provides a chronological relationship between events by saying how many years have passed. In this latter practice it is similar to the chronological usage in Heimskringla and, as in Heimskringla, it is not always apparent whether lapsed time is sequential or inclusive. In the case of Eadwig’s reign sequential would mean that Eadwig died in the year (955 + 4 =) 959 and inclusive (955, 956, 957, 958) would mean that Eadwig died in 958. There are many anomalies in the dates and chronology of Æthelweard’s Chronicle, and, since he deals with this reign in a mere twenty-five words, there is little internal evidence to help us decide his meaning in this instance.

Although the author of ASC D used an Indiction year, e.g. September 964 to September 965 for the annal ‘965’, it is unlikely that an ASC E source would have provided a date any more specific than the year and, at this time, its caput anni was midwinter, 25 December. So, if ASC E is the earliest authority for the marriage, it probably took place between January and December 965, with an outside possibility that the marriage took place in between September 964 and September 965. John of Worcester’s Chronicle for the year 964 states that King Edgar took Ealdorman Ordgar’s daughter, Ælfthryth, to wife after the death of her husband, Ealdorman Æthelwold.519 John’s Chronicle follows the modern calendar year, so this is evidence that the marriage took place between September 964 and December 964. Unfortunately, John’s source is not known.

The above analysis shows that King Eadwig died on 1 October 958, but there should be some reservation about the date because of the discrepancy between ASC A and ASC E. Most historians have used a composite date and state that King Eadwig died on 1 October 959 (see Cheney Handbook of Dates p. 17), but the practice of ‘composite dating’ can rarely if ever be accurate when part of one component in the composite contradicts the other component. In this case ASC A provides the day for the composite date, but has the year ‘958’.

There is charter evidence that the marriage took place in 964:

962: Death of Ealdorman Æthelwold

•

The charter evidence is that Ealdorman Æthelwold of East Anglia died during the year 962. He witnesses many charters as ealdorman during the years 961 and 962, and those charters are usually witnessed by a minister named Æthelwine, who is probably his brother and successor as ealdorman. The charters dated 961 are: S.688, S.689, S.690, S.691, S.692, S.693, S.694, S.695, S.696, S697. The charters dated 962 are: S.700, S.702, S.703.

•

There are two charters dated 962 that are witnessed by Ealdorman Æthelwine, who succeeded his brother as ealdorman of East Anglia in that year. They are: S.705 and S.706. John of Worcester’s Chronicle records the marriage of Ælfthryth to King Edgar in an annal for 964. He states that Queen Ælfthryth was the widow of ‘Æthelwold, the glorious ealdorman of the East Angles’,518 thus indicating that the ealdorman was dead. His source for the statement that Ælfthryth was Æthelwold’s widow is not known.

S.731 [Birch 1135] witnessed immediately after the king as Ælfþryð regina. This charter is dated A.D. 964, indiction September 964 to September 965, regnal year October 964 – October 965, 28 December feria 4 (i.e. Wednesday, a dating which identifies the date as Wednesday 28 December 964). The charter is generally considered to be ‘spurious’ though it may be founded on authentic material. S.725 [Birch 1143] not witnessed by the queen, it is a grant of land to her. This charter is dated A.D. 964, regnal year October 963 to October 964. It has been described as spurious and Whitelock considered the anathema to be ‘of the time of Athelstan’, but most of the debate about this charter concerns the identification of the property given to the queen.

c. 968: Birth of King Æthelred II Queen Ælfthryth’s marriage to King Edgar took place either between September and December 964 or in 965 (see above, for the marriage).

517

‘Tenuit namque quadriennio per regnum amandus.’ Campbell, Chronicle of Æthelweard, p. 55 verso. 518 Darlington and McGurk, Chronicle of John of Worcester, pp. 416-7.

519

84

Ibid.

Appendix 1: Chronological Analysis Æthelred had an elder brother named Edmund. If the marriage took place, at the earliest date, in September 964 and time is allowed for the conception and birth of Edmund and then Æthelred, realistically King Æthelred could not have been born before April 966 and it may have been later. If the marriage took place as late as December 965, Æthelred could not have been born before mid-year 967. These calculations assume that Queen Ælfthryth’s first two children were Edmund and Æthelred. At a time when many children died in infancy without making an impression on the historical record, this is not necessarily a safe assumption. The charter S.745, which is dated 966, evidences the existence of Æthelred’s brother Edmund and his (half) brother Edward, but does not mention Æthelred’s existence. This suggests that he was not borne until after the date of this charter.

972. ASC A has an erasure s.a. 971 and the ASC G copy of ASC A evidences that the 971 annal contained a notice of the death of the Ætheling Edmund. Since ASC A was using a mid-winter caput anni, it follows that the Ætheling Edmund died between September and December 971, on the evidence of ASC A/G and B/C. ASC E states that he died during the year 970 but the writer of ASC \E was geographically removed from events. ASC D, which derives information from the exemplars of ASC C and E, favours ASC E rather than ASC C but, unless ASC D has another independent source, this support is not relevant. The main obstacle to accepting the 971 date for Edmund’s death is the unexplained erasure in ASC A. It is possible that the erasure was made when ASC A was compared with ASC E during the production of ASC F. In this context it is relevant that ASC F, derived from versions of ASC A and E, says nothing on the subject of the Ætheling Edmund’s death.

William of Malmesbury says that Æthelred was seven years old when King Edgar died in 975 and that Edward reigned for three and a half years.520 Since Edgar died in July 975, this should mean that Æthelred was born before July 968. It should be noted that, if Edward reigned for three and a half years, he would have died in the first half of the year 979. In fact, Edward died in June 978, but versions D and E of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, state that he was killed on 18 March 979, so a possible source for William of Malmesbury’s statement is readily apparent. Later, William of Malmesbury says that Æthelred was ten years old when his brother, Edward, was killed and that his brother was killed in 979.521 This should mean that Æthelred was born before March 969 but after March 968. These two pieces of information from William of Malmesbury effectively point to between March and July 968 for the birth of Æthelred. Unfortunately, William is not a reliable source for this period, as his misunderstanding about the date of Edward’s death evidences. However, early sources, such as the Life of Oswald, show that there was a party in the Witan that wanted Æthelred to be made king in 975 when his father died. So he must have been about seven years old, since if he had been much younger very few people could have regarded him as a viable candidate.

There are three charter references to the Ætheling Edmund: •

•

•

The marriage and charter evidence suggest a date of either 967 or 968 and the evidence of William of Malmesbury is that he was borne mid-year 968. A date of c. 968 for King Æthelred’s birth fairly reflects the available evidence. Between September and December 971: Death of the Ætheling Edmund There have been difficulties in agreeing when the Ætheling Edmund died because of apparent contradictions in our chronicle sources. The exemplar of ASC B and C (ASC \C), probably using an Indiction year, states that he died between September 971 and September 520 521

Stubbs, Willelmi Malmesbiriensis, c. 161, p. 181. Ibid. c. 164, p. 185.

522

85

S.1485. [Birch 1174, not dated] The will of Ealdorman Ælfheah makes a bequest to þam yldran Æþælingæ þæs cyngæs suna, which, in context must refer to Edmund, but the will is not dated. There is charter evidence that Ealdorman Ælfheah of Hampshire was still alive in 972522, although the Chronicle of John of Worcester records his death in 971, after recording the death of the Ætheling Edmund. S.812. [Birch 1187, not dated] This is a confirmation of the privileges of Romsey Abbey by King Edgar, where, according to ASC A/G, the Ætheling Edmund was buried. The charter confirms this, saying Edmond Aeþeling’ he on þare ministre ligþ. The charter is not dated and is regarded as ‘very suspicious’. S.745, [Birch 1190, A.D. 966] This is King Edgar’s re-foundation and grant of privileges to New Minster, Winchester. It is witnessed by Edmund, immediately after the king and the archbishop of Canterbury: Ego Edmund clito legitimus prefati regis filius crucis signaculum infantili florens etate propria indidi manu. Interestingly his elder half-brother, Edward, witnesses immediately after: Ego Eadweard eodem rege clito procreatus prefatam patris munificentiam crucis signo consolidavi. There is no evidence in this charter of the existence of Edmund’s younger full brother, Æthelred. Queen Ælfthryth witnesses after Edward: Ego Ælfðryð legitima prefati regis conjuncx mea legatione monachis eodem loco rege annuente constituens crucem inpressi. The king’s grandmother is the next witness: Ego Eadgifu

S.784 [Birch 1285, dated A.D. 972].

The Reign of Æthelred II predicti regis ava hoc opus egregium crucis caumate consolidavi.

Since the annal for 946, recording the death of King Edmund, ASC A had followed a separate course from the other chronicles, recording in its own words the death of Bishop Ælfheah of Winchester s.a. 951, the death of King Eadred s.a. 955, the death of King Eadwig s.a. 958, (there is a late addition about St Dunstan s.a. 959, which is also in ASC F), the deaths of three people and a great fire in London s.a. 962, the deaths of two people and the consecration of Æthelwold as bishop of Winchester s.a. 963, and the replacement of priests by monks at the minsters in Winchester and elsewhere s.a. 964. Then it shares two annals with ASC \C (known to us via ASC C B), both in alliterative verse, one of which records the consecration of King Edgar at Bath s.a. 973 (ASC C s.a. 974), the other being the annal recording the death of King Edgar. Thereafter, the chronicles diverge again, ASC A having very few entries. The common source of the two alliterative annals is not known.

There is nothing in these charters to confirm his death, but they do not contradict the evidence of the AngloSaxon Chronicle. Keynes places Edmund’s death in 971, because, although versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle differ about the date, they all agree that it was two years before Edgar’s coronation.523 973: Coronation of King Edgar ASC A says that the coronation took place in 973. ASC C s.a. 974, probably using an indiction year September 973 to September 974 agrees with ASC A if the coronation took place between September 973 and December 973. ASC C can be shown to mean the year 973, because it agrees with ASC A in stating that the coronation took place 27 years before the millennium.

ASC E records Edgar’s death s.a. 975. ASC D (the fair copy of the Æthelredian Exemplar) follows ASC E’s wording in recording Edgar’s death s.a. 975 but adds the date of death, 8 July, which the writer of the Æthelredian Exemplar would have found in ASC \C.

ASC E says that the coronation took place in 972, on the day of Pentecost, on 11 May. However, 11 May and Pentecost coincide in 973 not 972 (Pentecost is 26 May in 972), so there must be an error in the exemplar of ASC E. The error must be in the exemplar because ASC D agrees with ASC E that the coronation was in the year 972 on the day of Pentecost on 11 May, so the Æthelredian Exemplar must have taken this information from ASC \E.

Charter evidence shows that Edgar could not have died before 975, but there are so many charters of Edgar with doubtful dates that one cannot say more than that. Byrhtferth’s Life of St Oswald records King Edgar’s death as 8 July.524 Whether the source of the Life is entirely independent of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle annals is not known. What is certain is that there is at least one, and possible more, source of very early provenance that provides the date of King Edgar’s death as 8 July 975.

Unfortunately, we are then left with a contradiction in the sources as to the date in 973 when the coronation took place. Pentecost is an obvious date for a formal crown wearing, as is evidenced by the practice of Edgar’s relatives, the (Liudolfinger) Ottonian emperors in Germany. However, the Christmas festival would be equally possible. So: •

ASC E/D is indicating 11 May 973 [much more likely than 26 May 972]

•

ASC A is stating 973.

•

ASC C is indicating between September and December 973

10 June 978: Death of King Edward the Martyr In an annal for the year 978, ASC A states that King Edward was killed. This annal places his death between midwinter 977 and midwinter 978. The ASC A annal was probably added to the manuscript early in the eleventh century at Winchester, but was probably drawn from a contemporary source.525 ASC C has an annal for the year 978, which states that Edward was martyred in that year. The use of the word ‘martyred’ is evidence that the phrase is not contemporary. However, the annals for the years 978 to 982 may have come from a contemporary source, since the monks at Abingdon saw fit use them to replace material that had been written into the exemplar of ASC C from the Æthelredian Exemplar.

It follows that the date of the coronation cannot be dated more accurately than the year 973. 8 July 975: Death of King Edgar ASC A s.a. 975 says Edgar died on 8 July. There is identical wording in ASC C and B, which must have been in ASC \C.

524

Raine, Historians of the Church of York, p. 443. See Bately, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. xxxvii for when the annal was written, and Bately, ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’ p. 48 for the possibility that the scribe had ‘an exemplar containing material only for the annals 978, 983, 984 and 994’. 525

523

Keynes, Diplomas p. 164 and note 39.

86

Appendix 1: Chronological Analysis A Life of Saint Oswald was written between 995 and 1006.526 This Life is an example of what has been termed the hermeneutic style of writing.527 In this style of writing, the author uses complex phrases and unusual words to demonstrate the extent of his learning and, in this Life of Saint Oswald, the hermeneutic style extends to the dating formulae. The date of King Edward’s death is recorded, stating that he died on the tenth day following the fifth or ninth month.528 Of the capita anni that the writer could have used, only two correlate. The fifth month of the year commencing January is May and the ninth month of the year commencing September is also May: hence, we are being told that King Edward was killed ten days after the end of May, or 10 June. It follows that the earliest sources ASC A and the Life of Saint Oswald, taken together, are saying that King Edward was killed on 10 June 978.

There is also a reference in ASC C to the consecration s.a. 978, but this is probably the result of a substantial amendment to C’s exemplar, which was misinterpreted by the scribe who copied it into ASC C.530 John of Worcester, following this reference in ASC C, says: His brother Æthelred, the illustrious atheling, elegant in his manners, handsome in visage, glorious in appearance, was consecrated to the most exalted position in the kingdom on Sunday, 14 April, in the sixth indiction, after the Easter feast by the blessed Archbishops Dunstan and Oswald and by ten bishops at Kingston.531 This was due to John’s misunderstanding of his sources, which indicated to him that the consecration took place in the year 978, when Easter fell on 31 March. So John calculated that two weeks after Easter, as stated in the ASC, would be 14 April. The indiction year September 977 to September 978 is ‘indiction 6’, so John’s calculation of the indiction accords with his understanding that the consecration was in April 978. This mistake could not have been possible if John had known that Edward was not killed until June 978.

King Edward was recognised as a saint early in the eleventh century and there were two translations of his body. The first translation took his body to the churchyard at Shaftesbury Abbey and the second translation, on 20 June 1001, was from the churchyard into the church at Shaftesbury Abbey. The date of the first translation is not recorded in our sources, but it is known that Edward was commemorated on 18 March. It is very likely that Edward would have been commemorated at Shaftesbury on the date of his first translation to the Abbey and that this date would have been used for a more general commemoration of Edward after his sanctity was evidenced by miracles at Shaftesbury.

980: Translation of the body of King Edward There is a hermeneutic dating formula in the Life of Saint Oswald, which states that King Edward’s body was translated to Shaftesbury in the twelfth month of the cycle of the lunar and solar calendar.532 This is a usage of the Golden Number, a regular feature of the Church calendar for finding the Easter festival but not usually to be found used in this way as a dating formula. The calendar refers to the nineteen-year period over which there is coincidence between the lunar and solar cycles. The Golden Number twelve, in context, means the year 980.533

In 1016 annals were written for the Æthelredian Exemplar,529 including an annal for the year 979 recording the death of King Edward. This annal, which is discussed in Chapter 6 above, says that Edward was killed on 18 March 979. It is generally accepted that the year, 979, cannot be correct, but many historians have assumed a composite date for Edward’s death: 18 March 978. With the above evidence before us that there is an earlier source, the Life of Saint Oswald, recording his death as 10 June, and that the date 18 March may be the date of the translation of his body to Shaftesbury, there is every reason to accept that 10 June 978 is the correct date for the death of King Edward the Martyr.

530

See above for the date of Edward’s death and Appendix 2, below, for an explanation of the substituted annals in ASC C. John of Worcester, pp. 430 – 1. 532 Raine, ‘Vita Oswaldi’, p. 450: Peractis bis senis mensibus ex diebus solaris anni et lunaris, venit gloriosus dux Ælfhere cum multitudine populi, qui corpus ejus e terris præcepit sublevari; I translate this: ‘Twelve [twice six] months from the cycle [days] of the solar and lunar year having been completed, the glorious Ealdorman Ælfhere came, with a multitude of people, and he ordered that the king’s [his] body should be lifted from the earth.’ 533 The ‘solar and lunar year’ is a reference to the close approximation of the solar and lunar cycles after a lapse of nineteen solar years. The number of each year in this cycle is known as the Golden Number and it features in the Church calendars for the calculation of Easter. To find the Golden Number of a year of grace, add one to the year of grace and divide by nineteen. The remainder is the Golden Number, unless the remainder is 0, when the Golden Number is 19. Our example is the Golden Number 12, which in the context of a 19-year cycle can only refer to the year 980. [(980 + 1) / 19 = 51, remainder 12] In the above quotation the word ‘year’ refers to the whole cycle and ‘month’ refers to the division of a cycle, e.g. 12 months in a calendar year, 13 months in a lunar year, 19 months in a solar/lunar cyclus decemnovennalis. Each of the divisions in this cyclus decemnovennalis is usually deemed to begin on 1 January. See Cheney, Handbook of Dates, p. 8. 531

4 May 979: Consecration of King Æthelred Æthelred succeeded his brother in June 978 and he was consecrated on 4 May 979. This date and year is in ASC C and the year is confirmed by ASC D and E. 526 The dating of this source is derived from a reference to Archbishop Ælfric of Canterbury. He was archbishop from 995 until 1005. 527 Lapidge, M. ‘The hermeneutic style in tenth-century Anglo-Latin literature’, ASE 4, 1975, pp 67-111. 528 Raine, ‘Vita Oswaldi’, p. 449: Nonus vel quintus interea effluxerat mensis et decimum lumen mortalibus radiabat, postquam ipse electus erat, contra quem sui fratris zelantes consurrexerunt ministri, cum ad dilecti fratris venire contenderet colloquium. 529 ASC DE.

87

The Reign of Æthelred II There is confirmation of the year 980 in ASC D and E. This 980 annal was almost certainly added to the exemplar of ASC C from the Æthelredian Exemplar, but was subsequently removed when space was created for the annals s.aa. 980-2 which are peculiar to ASC C.534 •

ASC D was using an indiction, September to September, year. ASC E’s exemplar attempted to use a midwinter, 25 December to 25 December, year from 978 until 991, so if the exact date of the translation was known when these two annals were prepared, it would be possible to date the translation between 25 December 979 and September 980.

Between September and December 989: Consecration of Archbishop Sigeric This is another example showing that the Æthelredian Exemplar, as transmitted by ASC C and D (s.a 990), was using an indiction, September to September, year and that the scribe who wrote the annals into ASC /E (s.a. 989) was maintaining a midwinter caput anni, where he had dates before him in his source material.536 The ASC E year is midwinter 988 to midwinter 989 and the ASC C and D year is September 989 to September 990, so the archbishop was consecrated between September and December 989.

Between September and December 980: Seven ships ravaged Southampton This event is recorded in ASC D E s.a. 981. When, later, the record of this raid was amended in the exemplar of ASC C it was recorded s.a. 980. The Æthelredian Exemplar and its fair copy ASC D were using an indiction caput anni at this time, so its year ran from September 980 to September 981.

Sigeric witnesses a charter, S.874, as archbishop dated A.D. 990, indiction year September 989 to September 990. This is the earliest dated charter which Sigeric witnesses as archbishop and it is compatible with his consecration being between September and December 989.

The scribe of ASC E’s exemplar amended the annals received from the Æthelredian Exemplar from indiction to mid-winter during the period 978 to 991, where possible, from information in the original source material, but did not do so for this event. This is evidence that the amendment in the ASC C annal was taken from a source unavailable to the creators of the Æthelredian Exemplar in 1016. This is also true of the other information added to the ASC C exemplar’s annals s.aa. 980 to 982, which was unavailable to the creators of the Æthelredian Exemplar.535

8 September 993: Scandinavian attack on London It is possible to demonstrate that the annals in versions C D and E of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that are derived from the Æthelredian Exemplar are using an indiction, September to September, caput anni in the annal year 994.537 The annal for 994 commences with an attack on London ‘on the nativity of St Mary’, that is 8 September. Since the annal covers the year September 993 to September 994, it is evident that this attack on London took place on 8 September 993.

The evidence of ASC D and ASC C, taken together, is that the event must have occurred between September and December 980. 987 and 988: Annals in the Æthelredian Exemplar

Many history books record this event, wrongly, as 8 September 994 and this has created enormous chronological problems, which have been variously explained. Following the correct dating of the event the chronological problems cease to exist, so they are not examined here.538

These annals say that in this year ‘Watchet was ravaged’. This information comes from the Æthelredian Exemplar, but it was copied into ASC /E in the year 987 and in ASC /C and D in the year 988. This is part of the evidence that: • • •

534 535

event than has been transmitted in the extant sources. This, in turn, indicates that the annals for the reigns of Æthelred and Edmund were copied into ASC /C and /E, and ASC D, from the Æthelredian Exemplar soon after they were created, that is in 1016-17. Watchet must have been ravaged between September 987 and December 987.

The scribe who wrote the annals into ASC /E was trying to retain a midwinter, 25 December, caput anni The Æthelredian Exemplar, and therefore the annals in ASC D and /C were using an indicition, September, caput anni. The source information was still available when a scribe wrote this annal into ASC /E, because he must have known more about the date of the

28 October, 994: Death of Archbishop Sigeric Sigeric died on 28 October, 994.539 536

Appendix 2, below. See Appendix 2, below and ‘Death of Archbishop Sigeric’, below. 538 They were considered in my PhD thesis, when the error in this date and the consequent errors in chronology were explained: Howard, ‘Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions of England’. When the attack on London was assumed to have taken place in ‘September 994’ there was an impossible conflation of the subsequent events recorded in the annal. 539 Searle, Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles, pp. 10-11. 537

Appendix 2, below. Appendix 2, below.

88

Appendix 1: Chronological Analysis ASC A, using a midwinter, December to December, year records Sigeric’s death in the year 994. ASC C D and E record the death in the year 995. This is evidence that the Æthelredian Exemplar was using an indiction caput anni, and that ASC /E, which had tried to maintain a midwinter caput anni, had fallen into line with its exemplar. The change in dating objectives of ASC /E may coincide with a change in the source material for the Æthelredian Exemplar, which is evidenced by a change in style from the annal for the year 991. The indiction year 995 commences in September 994 and this is compatible with Sigeric’s death occurring on 28 October 994.

•

Sigeric’s successor, Archbishop Ælfric, witnesses charters in 995. However, Sigeric also witnesses charters dated ‘995’. These are: •

•

charter is witnessed simply ‘Ego Siric’, whilst the bishops who witness after him have a full witnessing formulae including the name of their sees. S.1378 and S.1379 have the same date and witness list as S.882, above, except that S.1379 lacks the indiction date. The same discussion would seem to apply as for S.882. However, there is a strange anomaly. S.1378 is a charter of Bishop Æscwig of Dorchester in which he returns land to the ‘aecclesiae Christi et Ælfrico archiepiscopo metopolitanae sedis’: a grant of land to Archbishop Ælfric, witnessed by his, presumably, dead predecessor, Sigeric.

996: Earliest version of the Life of St Æthelwold There has been debate about whether Ælfric or Wulfstan wrote the earlier of the two extant versions of the Life of St Æthelwold at the beginning of the eleventh century.543 However, there is internal evidence for a version which was written, at about the time of the translation of Æthelwold’s body, in 996. Ælfric’s Life of St Æthelwold says of St Dunstan that:

S.882, a charter dated ‘anno dominicae incarnationis’ 995. It has an indiction, September 993 to September 994, so either the indiction or the year appears to be wrong. However, this charter was prepared at a time when some scribes were considering dating according to the year of ‘incarnation’ meaning annunciation, 25 March. At this early stage, logic might have led a scribe to use the Pisan convention (although he would not have known about Pisan and Florentine conventions). According to the Pisan convention the year of incarnation 995 ran from March 994 until March 995 and this dating would overlap with the indiction year September 993 to September 994. In this event both dates would be correct and the charter was witnessed some months before the date of Sigeric’s death. The extant manuscript is a fifteenth century copy of an original charter. Keynes takes the view that the charter should be dated 994 and that ‘995’ is a scribal error and Whitelock gives precedence to the indiction date, supporting the year 994.540 S.883, a charter dated ‘anno ab incarnatione domini’ 995. If the scribe were following the Pisan convention, 25 March 994 to 25 March 995, this date would be compatible with Sigeric’s date of death, 28 October 994. The charter has an impossible indiction which can be read either as September 985 to September 986 or as September 1000 to September 1001. Whitelock dates this charter 992 to 995 using the witness lists and this dating is compatible with Sigeric’s known date of death.541 Keynes suggests the possibility that this charter was witnessed whilst there was a vacancy in the see of Canterbury and that Sigeric’s name was inserted in a blank space.542 In support of Keynes’ theory, it should be noted that the

factus archiepiscopus mansit in Cantia triginta et septem annis, quasi columna immobilis doctrina, eleemosynis, prophetia præpollens, ad cujus tumbam etiam frequenter fieri miracula audivimus.544 This may be translated: (He) was made archbishop (and) he has remained in Kent for thirty-seven years, like an immovable pillar, powerful in learning, eloquence [Whitelock: ‘alms-giving’] and prophecy; at whose tomb also miracles are frequently performed (as) we have heard.545 Dunstan died in 988, having been archbishop twenty-nine years. He was buried at Canterbury. The reference to tomb and miracles means that we are to understand that he has remained in Kent, in the body, alive and dead, for thirty-seven years, taking us to the year 996 (year 959 + 37 = 996). 7 December 1003: King Æthelred’s charter to St Frideswide’s Monastery, Oxford This charter is S.909 and is dated ‘1004’ by Sawyer. It is dated ‘7 December 1004’ by Whitelock.546 According to Sawyer, Plummer thought it ‘spurious’ but most commentators have thought it authentic. Whitelock supported Stenton’s view that this charter was authentic 543

Whitelock, EHD, pp. 831 – 2. Vita S. Æthelwoldi c. 9 in Stevenson, Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, pp. 258-9. 545 My translation. There is a translation of the whole of this Life in Whitelock, EHD, pp. 831 – 9. 546 Whitelock, EHD, p. 545. 544

540

Keynes, Diplomas, p. 251. Whitelock, EHD, p.527. Whitelock, EHD, p.525. 542 Keynes, Diplomas, p. 253. 541

89

The Reign of Æthelred II save that she suspected ‘the last paragraph of the vernacular portion’ of the charter ‘of being a spurious addition.’547 The charter is dated in the opening sentence: ‘Anno dominicae incarnationis millesimo quarto’ so there can be no doubting that this date is 1004 (25 December 1003 to 25 December 1004).548 There follows an indiction date: September 1003 to September 1004 and a regnal year, 25. It is uncertain when an Anglo-Saxon king’s regnal year commenced, and this usage is unusual in this period, but Æthelred’s 25th year (opening year plus 24) cannot cover a date as late as December 2004. On this basis the charter should be dated between 25 December 1003 and, say, Easter 1004. However, there is another dating clause at the end of the charter, immediately before the witness list, which says the charter was written on the day of the octave of the blessed Apostle Andrew; that is 7 December. If this date is accepted the charter should almost certainly be dated 7 December 1003, although this is a few days earlier than indicated by the opening sentence. This charter is a renewal of privileges to replace manuscripts lost when the citizens of Oxford burnt down the church in order to kill some Danes who had sought refuge there after King Æthelred decreed that all Danes should be killed; a reference to the St Brice’s Day Massacre on 13 November 1002. The order was for the slaughter of the ‘deniscan men’. This description is given to the men who made up the enemy here that was troubling England at the turn of the century.549 From ASC A s.a. 1001 it seems probable that some of them had been settled in Devon as a mercenary force. Æthelred had reason to suspect them of treachery and so ordered the massacre. It is inconceivable that the massacre could have been directed at the men of the Danelaw, and it is most likely that any ‘Danes’ in Oxford would have been merchants from the Danelaw. Not only should the king have protected church sanctuary, he had also a responsibility for the protection of ‘strangers’ and merchants, so the approval, which King Æthelred expresses in this charter for the activities of the citizens of Oxford seems unlikely. It is possible that there was a fire or that church documents were lost in some other manner and that scribes at a later date forged this charter; but it is difficult to comment since the extant copies date from no earlier than the thirteenth century. A late concoction would explain the ‘spurious addition’ noted by Whitelock and the slight confusion over the dating mechanism. What it does evidence is that there was animosity between the Mercians and the men of the Danelaw and perhaps some jealously over trading activities, and that the Mercians expected the West Saxon king to sympathise with them.

547

Ibid. We must assume the possibility of ‘25 December’ in both years because scribal practice varied as to whether a day started at mid-night or mid- day. 549 Usually the ASC annals refer simply to the here; but see ASC CDE s.a. 999 for ‘Deniscan’. 548

90

Appendix 2: The Æthelredian Exemplar An examination of the origins of the MS D version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (British Library, MS Cotton Tiberius Biv) 1 Introduction

3 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle552

The manuscript known as MS D is in the British Library. It is a well preserved manuscript and the writing is very legible. At some time in medieval times leaves (pages) were removed from this manuscript. Conventional wisdom was that many leaves had been removed and subsequently replaced. When I examined the manuscript in the British Library, I found conventional wisdom required that a scribe should have copied out replacement leaves in careful writing, with a consistent number of lines to each leaf, ending without apparent effort on the last line half way through a word which is completed on the next leaf. I examined the manuscript carefully and concluded that conventional wisdom was wrong and that much of the manuscript had been written earlier than had previously been thought. This early section of the manuscript is derived from many sources, which I have named the Æthelredian Exemplar for reference purposes. The knowledge gained from my examination of the manuscript and research into its sources puts a new perspective on the history of the reign of Æthelred II and resolves many problems concerning the man and his times. It is also fundamentally important to the study of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is the modern name given to texts in a series of related manuscripts which were written, for the most part, between the ninth and twelfth centuries in England. At a time when most Western European chronicles were written in Latin, the AngloSaxon Chronicle was written in the vernacular language, Old English. The origin of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is to be found in a ninth-century compilation. It was a record from the earliest times to which was added a contemporary account of Alfred’s reign including, in particular, his successful struggle to save the West Saxon nation from ‘Danish’ invaders. Later versions of the Chronicle drew upon the ninth-century archetype and additional sources in order to create a suitable historical base to which contemporary annals could be added. Extant manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle have been annotated between lines, in the margins or by making deletions to provide space. It is evident that from the earliest times copies of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle have been treated as working documents and that our extant versions of the Chronicle are to some degree fair copies of earlier exemplars.

2 The Æthelredian Exemplar The Æthelredian Exemplar is no longer extant. Its existence, content and provenance can be deduced from a detailed examination of the extant versions of the AngloSaxon Chronicle. A description and evaluation of the Æthelredian Exemplar is of considerable value to historical research studies. Had there been no Æthelredian Exemplar we should have significantly less information about the reigns of King Æthelred II (the Unready) and his son, Edmund (Ironside). Also, a study of the Æthelredian Exemplar provides an insight into other versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and some important differences between extant versions and their exemplars.

Professor Swanton’s edition of the Chronicle provides a concise introduction versions.553 The abbreviations used for versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle554 are:

Anglo-Saxon to the extant the different in this paper

MS A: Cambridge, Corpus Christi College MS. 173 MS B: British Library MS. Cotton Tiberius A vi MS C: British Library MS. Cotton Tiberius B i MS D: British Library MS. Cotton Tiberius B iv MS E: Oxford, Bodleian Library MS. Laud 636 MS F: British Library MS. Cotton Domitian A viii MS G: British Library MS. Cotton Otho B xi

The Æthelredian Exemplar has not previously been the subject of a separate study. It is, however, described in my PhD thesis550 and it is described briefly in my book, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions and the Danish Conquest of England.551

MS G was destroyed in a fire but is known through a transcript. It is sometimes known as ‘MS W’ because of Abraham Wheloc’s seventeenth-century edition of this source. All these versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle were written in Old English. MS F also incorporates a Latin translation. 552 There is a schematic which shows the relationship of the different versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, including the Æthelredian Exemplar, in Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions and the Danish Conquest of England, Figure 1, p. 4. 553 Swanton, ASC, pp. xi-xxxv 554 The designatory letters in the abbreviations are those used in Thorpe, ASC

550

Howard, ‘Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions’, pp. 85-8. Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions and the Danish Conquest of England, pp. 167-8. 551

91

The Reign of Æthelred II In this appendix, exemplars of manuscripts are designated with the symbol ‘\’. Thus, the exemplar from which MS C was copied is designated ‘MS \C’ and the exemplar from which MS E was copied is designated ‘MS \E’. The exemplars MS \C and MS \E are no longer extant and their existence is known through their derivatives MS C and MS E.

originally that for the year 1016, though accurate, needs justification because it does not accord with Neil Ker’s authoritative description of MS D,556 a description which was accepted in essence by Cubbin in the introduction to his edited version of the manuscript.557 Ker believed it ‘probable’ that ‘ff. 68-73 (quire 9: annals 1016-51) are supply leaves written in the 1070’s or 1080’s’. He also noted that at ‘1051 the manuscript is perhaps a contemporary record’. Ker is mistaken in his belief that ff. 68-73 are ‘supply leaves’; that is leaves added at a later date to replace folios that had been removed previously.

In Old English quotations, the letter ‘w’ has been substituted for wynn. Accents have been omitted. Abbreviations have been extended using round brackets to indicate additional letters. Some modern capitalisation has been introduced.

Before explaining why ff. 68-73 are not supply leaves, Cubbin’s comments on the matter are worth mentioning. Cubbin appears to accept Ker’s explanation that ff. 68-73 are ‘supply leaves’, writing:

4 Exemplars In relation to studying the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, an ‘exemplar’ is a manuscript from which another is copied. This may occur when •

•

•

Ker considers that in medieval times f. 67 may have been the first of an otherwise lost gathering, and he describes 68-73 as a gathering of six. This is therefore the ninth gathering. After f. 73 there follows a stub some 50 mm. wide (the modern parchment onto which the single leaf numbered 67 is mounted). It is indeed certain that the six leaves concerned replace a lost section. The section was written by two scribes different from those who wrote the surrounding sections.558

There is a requirement for another copy of a document. The original copy (the exemplar) is copied to create a new document. If the two documents are then kept at separate locations, where they are amended and annotated, differences will arise between them. The extant versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are believed to derive ultimately from a common ninth-century source (exemplar) but, following amendments and additions to copies made over a period of centuries, they now differ significantly from each other. An original document (the exemplar) has been amended and annotated to such an extent that it becomes appropriate to create a fresh copy, incorporating the amendments and annotations. In this instance the exemplar usually ceases to exist; it is superseded by the new document. A document is prepared from a variety of sources. Working documents (the exemplar) are collected or prepared and then copied to produce a fair version of the new document. In this instance, original sources may be dispersed and other material, prepared specifically for the exemplar, may cease to exist. Thus, the exemplar is superseded by the new document.

This analysis is consistent in that, if ff. 68-73 are ‘supply leaves’ replacing missing folios, they will be written by hands different from those responsible for writing the surrounding folios. Yet, in his commentary to the edited text, Cubbin notes the beginning of f. 74r with the words ‘The fifth hand starts here or a few words later.’559 A ‘few words later’ is impossible if ff. 68-73 are truly ‘supply leaves’; so at this point Cubbin’s analysis becomes inconsistent. This inconsistency and the related palaeographical analysis are examined later. Before that, evidence will be examined which demonstrates that for all practical purposes ff. 68-73 cannot be regarded as ‘supply leaves’. It will be seen from Ker’s description of MS D that its medieval folios to the annal for 1016 are, or were, in gatherings of eight. As described by Ker, and in Cubbin’s description quoted above, f. 67 is a single leaf, the remainder of the gathering having been removed. It is followed by a gathering of six, ff. 68-73. Together, ff. 67, 68-73 and the stub to which f. 67 is attached substitute for a gathering of eight leaves. Ff. 68-73 complete the annal for 1016, add further annals and conclude midway

5 MS D MS D was originally a fair copy555 of the Æthelredian Exemplar. When first written, its annals started with the first year of the Christian era and continued up to an annal for the year 1016. Subsequently, folios were removed from MS D occasioning the loss of part of the annal for 1016; after this the 1016 annal was made good and further annalistic material was added at different times. The statement that the concluding annal was

556

Ker N. R. Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957, pp. 253-5 557 Cubbin, MS D 558 Cubbin, MSD, p. x 559 Cubbin, MS D, p. 71 note 2 [1052]

555

See Garmonsway, ASC, p. xxxvii and his reference to ‘a lost original’

92

Appendix 2: The Æthelredian Exemplar explanation about the seven missing leaves from a gathering of eight would end at this point. The content of the missing leaves would remain a mystery because they are no longer extant. However, evidence will be considered later in this appendix identifying a Latin translation of the annalistic material removed from MS D after f. 67v and, if this identification is accepted, it is likely that most of the seven leaves removed from the gathering of eight were blank; further evidence that ff. 68-73 cannot be ‘supply leaves’.560

through an annal dated 1051; indeed midway through a word since the first two letters of gemetsod are on f. 73v and the remaining six letters are on f. 74r. Two hands can be distinguished in the writing of ff. 68-73. Ker thought that the hand which wrote ff. 83 (from line 11)-86, covering annals for the year 1071-9, was ‘apparently’ the same as the first of the two hands that wrote ff. 68-73. Since Ker believed that MS D was ‘perhaps a contemporary record’ in 1051, it can be seen why he deduced that MS D was originally a mid-eleventh century manuscript with subsequent additions and that ff. 68-73 were ‘supply’ leaves added ‘in the 1070’s or 1080’s’.

At this stage, we can return to Cubbin’s comment that a new hand starts at the beginning of f. 74r ‘or a few words later’. There is in fact a similarity between the writing of f. 73v and the opening lines of f. 74r. There are differences in the two hands, however. One of the most notable is the construction of the conjunction ‘7’. This is written as a lower case letter with a relatively short tail on f. 73v and as an upper case letter with, consequently, a much longer tail on f. 74r. The conjunction 7, with a comparatively short tail precedes the word gemetsod which is divided between the two leaves. The conjunction 7 also follows gemetsod on f. 74r where it has a comparatively long tail. This is evidence that different hands were responsible for writing folios 73v and most of 74r. However, the size and shape of all the letters in the word gemetsod suggest that they were written by the same hand; so one should have sympathy with Cubbin’s comment. If all the letters of the word were indeed written by the same hand there could be no question but that ff. 68-73 could not be supply leaves. Unfortunately, the size and shape of six letters in these particular circumstances are insufficient in themselves to form the basis for an important argument. Hence this point is made after establishing the reasons for rejecting the view that ff. 68-73 are ‘supply leaves’.

Ker’s reputation and authority are considerable. Since some elements of the palaeographer’s work must involve a degree of uncertainty, he ring-fenced his total work on Anglo-Saxon manuscripts with general caveats and showed some reticence in his individual conclusions. Because of his recognised authority, those who use his work are sometimes tempted to ignore the caveats and base their analysis on Ker’s findings as if they were invariably certain. In his analysis of MS D there are one certain error and two possible errors. No doubt Ker would have pointed to his caveats by way of defence but those who have used his work without caveat are more exposed and reluctant to accept the possibility of error. A reluctance to question Ker’s findings has led to misunderstandings which have made it difficult to recognise the true importance and provenance of MS D and its exemplar. Ker’s description of ff. 68-73 as ‘supply leaves’ is certainly an error. A cursory examination appears to support the claim that ‘supply leaves’ replaced folios/annals that had been removed previously. The hands which wrote ff. 68-73 write much smaller letters than the hand which precedes them. So it is possible that the ‘smaller’ hand was able to write information on the six available leaves that previously had been written on the seven leaves which had been removed. However, the hands which wrote ff. 68-73 are significantly ‘smaller’ and, on six leaves, wrote some 14% more words than the earlier scribe would have achieved on seven leaves. It should be noted that the hand which wrote f. 74r is quite different from the hand which wrote f. 67v, so if ff. 68-73 were indeed ‘supply leaves’ there must have been a change of hand at some point in the original leaves. So although this numeric comment is very significant, there is a possible explanation. Also, of course, the words and phraseology used in the annals on the ‘supply leaves’ may have been significantly different from those in the ‘missing’ leaves. Nevertheless, the arithmetic does throw a significant doubt upon the practicality of ff. 68-73 being ‘supply leaves’. In fact, an examination of the leaves shows that the words flow in a very natural way on each line and that the split word at the end of f. 73v is equally natural. It is certain that if a scribe were inventing annals which would exactly coincide with a split word at the end of f. 73v, the evidence of his endeavour would be apparent. It is not, so ff. 68-73 cannot be supply leaves; they are a new and continuous addition to a manuscript from which leaves had been removed. Normally, the

Having commented adversely upon Ker’s reference to ‘supply leaves’, it should in fairness be repeated that he did introduce the subject with the word ‘apparently’. Also, Ker was quoting established opinion that MS D was a fair copy of material from many sources made in the mid-eleventh century, and an inference of this dating is that ff. 68-73 are supply leaves. Garmonsway provides an excellent summary of the state of authoritative knowledge about MS D immediately before Ker wrote his description of the manuscript.561 There is another feature in Ker’s analysis of MS D which may be described as a possible error. Ker believed that the 1051 annal was contemporary. He also thought that he recognised one of the hands which wrote ff. 68-73 as the same hand that added annals to MS D in the 1070’s or 1080’s. These two thoughts are unlikely to be simultaneously correct. The same hand is unlikely to have added annals in the mid eleventh century and, following the intervention of other hands, have added some further annals in the 1070’s or 1080’s – unlikely, though not impossible. Ker’s view that the annal for the year 1051 560 561

93

See below. The evidence is in the Chronicle of John of Worcester Garmonsway, ASC, pp. xxxvii - xxxix

The Reign of Æthelred II was contemporary is generally accepted and there is good internal and external evidence to support it. Whatever view is taken of this feature in Ker’s analysis, it has no bearing on the argument in this paper.

detailed analysis of the sources is an immense task, beyond the scope of this appendix. Essentially, the original appearance of the Æthelredian Exemplar is to be recognised by a careful comparison of MS D, its fair copy, with other extant versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

Before leaving Ker’s analysis of MS D, there is one further comment which should be made. Ker distinguishes two different hands writing the medieval leaves up to and including f. 67v. He does this without caveat. Cubbin agrees with Ker but comments, in relation to the change from Ker’s first hand to second hand that ‘Keller, wrongly, considers it to be the same hand as the first’.562 It should be observed that, in the mid-nineteenth century, Thorpe undertook a painstaking examination of MS D in order to produce his great comparative edition of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and so speaks with some authority. He stated that MS D was ‘written in one hand to A.D. 1016, afterwards in several’.563 Whether MS D was written in one hand or two to the annal for 1016 does not affect the argument of this paper. However, the reader should be aware of the possibility of error in Ker’s analysis on this point.

When discussing the appearance of the Æthelredian Exemplar, one caveat should be made at the outset. We have many depictions of scribes copying manuscripts. It was a solitary undertaking as depicted and there need be no doubt that the depictions are accurate as regards copying classical and biblical manuscripts. However, the original manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, like the homilies and laws, were a record of the spoken word and were written in the vernacular so that they could be read aloud and readily understood. Because the annals covering the reign of King Æthelred II were copied from the Æthelredian Exemplar into MS D and also into the ancestors of MSS C and E, a detailed comparison of three ‘copies’ can be made. There are many spelling differences and some differences which probably reflect mishearing on the part of a copier. This comparison suggests that passages were dictated from the Æthelredian Exemplar in at least two, and probably all three, of these sources. This is relevant to our understanding of the sources and means that the appearance/spelling of some individual words in the Æthelredian Exemplar may be uncertain since none of our extant versions can be regarded as exact copies in regard to spelling, and some words have evidently been misheard.564

For the purposes of this paper, the important evidence is that MS D was a complete manuscript until the annal for 1016; leaves were removed and MS D was taken up again and continued in the mid eleventh century (or possibly, though unlikely, in the 1070’s or 1080’s). This new understanding is extremely important because it allows us to resolve some matters which have puzzled commentators and it allows us to establish the purpose, provenance and sponsor of the Æthelredian Exemplar. 6 Re-creating the Æthelredian Exemplar

A distinguishing feature of the Æthelredian Exemplar is the number and variety of sources brought together for its creation.565 It is apparent that some material was prepared specifically. It is also apparent that, since some sources had overlapping material, they must have been annotated by scribes to facilitate the eventual creation of a fair copy. Occasionally, the annotation process failed in its purpose and a scribe, who copied the annals to create MS D, duplicated material, clearly unconscious of the mistake he was making.

In many ways MS D and its exemplar may be considered the poor relations of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle studies. Earle and Plummer concentrated attention on MSS A and E; Stenton and Whitelock recognised the importance of MS C. By contrast, MS D has long been regarded as a mid-eleventh century compilation of material most of which can be found in other versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle but important for the few items of additional information that are unique to it. Once it is recognised as an early eleventh century compilation, a different attitude to it is required. Then, the exemplar of MS D can be seen to be the source from which a significant proportion of our annal records for the late tenth and early eleventh century are derived. Because MS D predates our extant versions of MSS E and C it is a measure by which we can compare these versions to ascertain what was original information and what was a later addition. Because the Æthelredian Exemplar came into existence early in the eleventh century it is also a measure which can help to evaluate and give chronological order to some of the changes which are apparent in MS A. For these reasons a careful analysis of the appearance and the sources of the Æthelredian Exemplar are of significant importance to the development of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle studies. A 562 563

The first source of the Æthelredian Exemplar appears to have been a copy of one of the earliest versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. This early version was a ninth century compilation to which annals covering the reign of King Alfred were added. MS A and MS \C (the ancestor of MSS B and C) also received annals from an early version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. There are differences between MSS A and D which make it evident that MS A has had no direct influence on the Æthelredian Exemplar. However, a preliminary analysis shows that 564 Since MSS C and E are not direct copies of the originals, which received some of their annals from the Æthelredian Exemplar, and they have obviously been subject to some amendment, dictation need not be an explanation for all the spelling differences – there is some evidence that language was ‘modernised’ slightly in the transmission of MS E, for instance. 565 See Garmonsway, ASC, pp. xxxvii – xxxix

Cubbin, MSD, p. xi, note 12 Thorpe, ASC, p. xvii

94

Appendix 2: The Æthelredian Exemplar the Æthelredian Exemplar could have been influenced directly by MS \C after the MS \C and MS A versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle had gone their separate ways in diverging from the Alfredian original.

There are two accounts of the battle of Tettenheal, one under 909, the other under 910, both showing points of resemblance with the Mercian Register 910; the death of Æthelred of Mercia and the submission of London and Oxford to Edward the Elder are mentioned, both under 910 and under 912; the ravages of the here from Brittany are mentioned briefly in 910, and more fully in 915. The explanation seems to be that 912 and 915 come from the main chronicle, 909 from the Mercian Register, while the part of 910 here dealt with comes from the northern source.570

Another source of the Æthelredian Exemplar was Bede’s Ecclesiastical History. The Alfredian original had made much use of Bede’s Chronological Summary of his Ecclesiastical History in compiling its early annals. It is apparent that the author of the Æthelredian Exemplar extended the early annals, which he found in his version of the Alfredian original, by reference to Bede’s Ecclesiastical History.566 Not only that but he wrote a new preface to his work, based on Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, which he appears to have substituted for the preface in the Alfredian original – ‘appears’, because it is not certain that his version of the Alfredian original had a preface when he used it.567

The three sources are distinct. One could be MS \C for there is no reason to assume a different transmission of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the purposes of understanding the Æthelredian Exemplar. However, although the so-called Mercian Register is to be found in MSS B and C, it is evident that the annals in MS D have slightly different material, suggesting that the compiler of the Æthelredian Exemplar had independent access to the Mercian Register. There is evidence of the existence of a separate northern source of annals in twelfth century Latin chronicles and the Æthelredian Exemplar provides earlier evidence for their existence. It is a reminder that many northern manuscripts must have been wholly or partly destroyed – perhaps during the Norman devastation of the north in the late eleventh century.

When the author of the Æthelredian Exemplar could no longer draw upon Bede’s Ecclesiastical History for additional information he turned to a series of northern annals.568 Next, the author of the Æthelredian Exemplar attempted to amalgamate information from three sources. Garmonsway explains: For the early tenth century this northern chronicler used the ‘first Wessex continuation’ which ran from 891 to 924, but again showed his independence in his treatment of the Mercian Register and a second group of northern annals which apparently ran from 901 to 966. Instead of copying them both wholesale into his work (as the archetype of B and C did with the Mercian Register) he attempts an amalgam of all three. As Plummer has shown this results in certain inconsistencies: certain annals are omitted, and several events are entered twice.569

MS \C, or something very like it, remains a constant source of annals in the Æthelredian Exemplar until the annal for the year 977. The MS B derivative of MS \C ends with an annal for 977, and this is unlikely to be a coincidence. There are two important modifications to the annals derived from MS \C. Garmonsway notes a ‘modification consisting mainly in the supersession of poems written in conventional alliterative measures by others whose rhythms suggest the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of ‘free verse.’ Jost’s recognition of the style of Archbishop Wulfstan in the MS D passages is now accepted571 and the passages are generally attributed to the archbishop, although why they were written and how they came to be in this compilation has been a puzzle. The re-dating of the Æthelredian Exemplar removes this problem, since the archbishop, who did not die until 1023, could have written these passages specifically for inclusion therein.

Plummer’s explanation of the inconsistencies provides an idea of the complexity of amalgamating different sources and indicates a certain lack of perception in the author of the Æthelredian Exemplar. 566

The Alfredian original and the Æthelredian Exemplar are written in Old English, whilst Bede’s work is in Latin. A translation was therefore required. That the Alfredian original uses the Chronological Summary and the early eleventh-century Æthelredian Exemplar uses the whole work may be a reflection on the advancement of scholarship since Alfred’s reign. The scribe who extracted and translated material from the larger oeuvre was evidently quite at ease reading Latin and writing in Old English. This contrasts with Alfred’s lament about the decline of Latin scholarship in his day. 567 There is a ‘Genealogical Preface’ in MS A and probably also in MS B originally, though not in MS C. So whether MS \C had the ‘Genealogical Preface’ is uncertain. 568 Garmonsway, ASC, p. xxxviii, refers to a series of annals from a Northumbrian chronicle known as the Gesta Veterum Northanhymbrorum, which is now lost, for annals added over the period 733 to 806. 569 Garmonsway, ASC, p. xxxviii

The final section of the Æthelredian Exemplar consists of a series of annals covering the period 979 (recte 978) – 1016, from the death of King Edward II (the Martyr) through the reign of King Æthelred II (the Unready) to the death of Æthelred’s son King Edmund (Ironside). It is a compilation of early information and contemporary 570 Plummer C. (ed.), Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel with supplementary extracts from the others, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892-9, p. xiii 571 Jost ‘Wulfstan und die angelsächsische Chronik’ (47 Anglia 105 ff.) 1923 (quoted by Garmonsway, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. xxxviii), pp. 105 ff.

95

The Reign of Æthelred II 19, the text of which has been supplied by Joscelyn on ff. 10-18.572

additions, which may have been some years in gestation but which was probably written in some haste during the year 1016. MS D is our earliest extant copy of these annals but they were also copied into the exemplars of MSS C and E. The versions in MSS C and E, being derivatives, include later amendments copied from their exemplars. This final section of the Æthelredian Exemplar, which may be termed a ‘Chronicle of the Reign of King Æthelred’, is of considerable importance to our understanding of the extant manuscripts of the AngloSaxon Chronicle, but before analysing it, it is necessary to deal with some other matters concerning the Æthelredian Exemplar.

‘Quire’ in this context is another word for ‘gathering’. In the sixteenth century, MS D was in the possession of Archbishop Parker’s secretary, John Joscelyn. He compared it with other versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and annotated it extensively. Folios are missing from MS D and have been made good by a paper substitute written in Joscelyn’s hand. A comparison of MS D with MS E, which (after allowing for the Peterborough additions) has very similar annals before and after the gap in MS D, indicates that there was an extensive list of annal years with no entries and a relatively few fruitful annals in the missing gatherings. Since Joscelyn was making extensive annotations, it is possible that he found it convenient to remove the original gatherings and provide his own substitute. Whatever the reason for the substitution, it is only by reference to MS E – first identifying and excluding the late Peterborough additions – that we can ascertain the likely content of the Æthelredian Exemplar for the missing annals.

7 MS E and the Æthelredian Exemplar MS E is known as the ‘Peterborough Manuscript’ because it was written there in the twelfth century. It is based upon an exemplar [MS \E] which the Peterborough monks appear to have received from Canterbury. The Peterborough monks added information about their monastery and matters of local history to this exemplar when they were writing MS E. The manuscript annals were then continued into the period beyond the Norman Conquest of England. The Canterbury exemplar had been used as the basis for the creation of MS F at the turn of the eleventh century. The scribe who prepared MS F compared MS \E and MS A, which was then in Canterbury, and annotated his source manuscripts. Thus, MS E has received some material from MS A; equally, MS A has received material from MS \E.

8 MS A and the Æthelredian Exemplar The relationship between MS A and the Æthelredian Exemplar is remote. There was no connection until MS \E and MS A were compared at Canterbury during the creation of MS F. MS A is our oldest extant version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and it is in some ways the most complex. As well as its relationship with MS F and MS \E, it also has an indirect relationship with MS \C, the exemplar from which MSS B and C are derived. MS G was a copy of MS A, created before some of the later amendments to MS A.

Before MS \E went to Canterbury it was a northern manuscript, possibly housed in York. Before it went to Canterbury it had a relationship with the Æthelredian Exemplar. After making allowance for the Canterbury and Peterborough additions, there is a similarity between MSS E and D, indicating that they have used the same source or sources for their annals until the year 1016. However, since MS D has the better transmission of the common information, MS \E cannot be the source of the early annals in the Æthelredian Exemplar, and its fair copy MS D. The reason for the close relationship between the two manuscripts must be conjecture. It is possible that MS \E was a York compilation created in part before the early eleventh century but used and added to during the creation of the Æthelredian Exemplar. An alternative possibility is that MS \E was originally compiled from the sources which made up the Æthelredian Exemplar but a little more carelessly than the fair copy, MS D.

MS A has been annotated in the margins; it has been amended by the deletion of material and the substitution of new material; its annal numbers have been altered and, in some cases, altered back again; and the changes have taken place at different times over many years. Because of the existence of a transcript of MS G, it is possible to recognise some of the later amendments made to MS A and this facility is valuable when comparing it with other versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the purposes of content and chronological analysis. Because of its relative independence, comparisons with other versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are particularly instructive. As such it has a considerable importance in a detailed analysis yet to be undertaken in relation to the Æthelredian Exemplar. Nothing further need be said about MS A for the purposes of this appendix.

Although MS E is a late derivative, it is important to a study of the Æthelredian Exemplar because it provides evidence of its content for the years 262 – 692. As Ker explains:

9 A Chronicle of the Reign of King Æthelred II (the Unready)

F. 9v ends with the year number CCLXI: the next old leaf, f. 19, begins ‘to arcebiscop’ in the annal for 693: probably two quires are missing between f. 9 and f.

Consideration can now be given to the final section of the Æthelredian Exemplar. This section contains annals 572

96

Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts, pp. 253-5

Appendix 2: The Æthelredian Exemplar dated 979 (recte 978) to 1016. Like the Alfredian Original it was copied and transmitted to different provinces. It is in MS C, the Abingdon version of the Chronicle, having been added to its exemplar, MS \C. It is in MS E, having been added to its exemplar MS \E, which probably had a York provenance but was sent to

Canterbury during the eleventh century. It is also in the fair copy of the Æthelredian Exemplar, MS D, which was a Worcester manuscript. Because we can compare three versions of this section it is possible to identify changes made to the exemplars of MSS C and E after they received the annals from the Æthelredian Exemplar:-

MS C 978

MS D 978

MS E 978

Her on þysum geare wearð Eadweard cyning gemartyrad . 7 Æþelred æþeling his broðor feng to þam rice .

Her on þissum geare ealle þa yldestan Angelcynnes witan gefeollon æt Calne of anre upfloran . buton se halga Dunstan arcebisceop ana ætstod uppan anum beame . 7 sume þær swiðe gebrocode wæron . 7 sume hit ny gedydon mid þam life .

Her on þissum geare . ealle þa yldestan Angelcynnes witan gefeollon æt Calne of anre upfloran . buton se halgan Dunstan arcebiscop ana ætstod uppan anum beame . 7 sume þær swiðe gebrocode wæron . 7 sume hit ne gedygdan mid þam life .

979

979

979

On þys geare wæs Æþelred to cininge gehalgod . on þone sunnandæig . feowertyne niht ofer Eastron . æt Cingestune . 7 þær wæron æt his halgunge twegen ercebisceopas . 7 tyn leod bisceopas .

Her wæs Eadweard cyning ofslægen on æfentide æt Corfesgeate . on xv. K(a)l. Ap(ri)l. 7 hine mon þa gebyrigde on Werhamme . butan ælcum cynelicum wurðscipe . Ne wearð Angelcynne nan wyrse dead gedon þonne þeos wæs . syþþan hi æft Britenland gesohton . Menn hine ofmyrþredon . ac God hine mærsode . He wæs on life eorðlic cyning . he is nu æfter deaðe heofonlic sanct . Hyne noldon his eorðlican magas wrecan . ac hine hafað his heofonlic Fæder swyþe gewrecan . Þa eorlican banan woldon his gemynd on eorðan adilgian . ac se uplica Wrecend hafað his gemynd on heofonum 7 on eorþan tobræd . Þa ðe noldon ær to his libbendan lichaman onbugan . þa nu eadmodlice on cneowum gebugað to his deada banum . Nu we magan ongytan . þæt manna wisdom . 7 heora smeagunga . 7 heora rædas . syndon nahtlice ongean Godes geþeaht .

Her wæs Eadward cyng ofslygen on æfentide æt Corfesgeate . on xv. K(a)l. Apr(il). 7 hine man bebyrigde æt Wærham . butan ælcum cynelicum wurðscipe . Ne wearð Angelcynne nan wærsa dæd gedon þonne þeos wæs . syþþon hi ærest Brytonland gesohton . Men hine ofmyrðrodon . ac God hine mærsode . He wæs on life eorðlic cyng . he is nu æfter deaðe heofonlic sanct . Hine noldon his eorðlican magas wrecan . ac hine hafað his heofonlica Fæder swiðe gewrecen . Ða eorðlican banan woldon his gemynd on erðan adilgian . ac se uplica Wrecend hafað his gemynd on heofenum 7 on eorðan tobræd . Ða þe nolden ær to his libbendum lichaman onbugan . þa nu eadmodlice on cneowum abugað to his dædum banum . Nu we magon ongytan . þ(æt) manna wisdom . 7 smeagunga . 7 heora rædas . syndon nahtlice ongean Godes geþeaht .

7 he wæs on þam ylcan geare to cinge gehalgod . On þam geare forðferde Alfwold . se wæs bisceop on Dorsætum . 7 his lic lið on þam mynstre æt Scireburnan .

Þy ilcan geare wæs gesewen blodig wolcen on oft siðas . on fyres gelicnesse . 7 þ(æt) wæs swyðost on middeniht oþywed . 7 swa on mistlice beamas wæs gehiwod . Þonne hit dagian wolde . þonne toglad hit .

And her feng Æðelred to rice . 7 he wæs æfter þam swiðe hrædlice . mid mycclum gefean Angelcynnes witon . gehalgod to cyninge æt Cyningestun .

Her feng Æþelred to rice . 7 he wæs æfter þæm swyðe hrædlice . mid micclum gefean Angelcynnes witan . gehalgod to cyninge æt Cyngestune .

980

980

980

Her on þys geare wæs Æþelgar abbod to bisceope gehalgod . on vi. Nonas Mai . to þam bisceopstole æt Seolesigge .

Her on þissum geare Ælfhere ealdorman gefette þæs halgan cyninges lichaman æt Werhamme . 7 geferede hine mid micclum weorðscipe to Sceaftesbirig .

Her on þisum geare . Ælfere ealdorman gefette þes halgan cyninges lichaman æt Wærham . 7 geferode hine mid mycclum wurðscipe to Scæftesbyrig .

981

981

981

Her on þys geare wæs Sce Petroces stow forhergod . 7 þy ilcan geare wæs micel hearm gedon gehwær be þam sæ riman . ægþer ge on Defenum ge on Wealum .

Her com ærest þa vii. scipu 7 hergodon Hamtun .

Her comon ærest þa vii. scipum and gehergoden Hamtun .

982 [blank annal]

982 [blank annal]

7 on þam ylcan geare wæs Suðhamtun forhergod fram scipherige . 7 seo burhwaru mæst ofslegen 7 gehæft . 7 þy ilcan geare wæs Tenetland gehergod . 7 þy ilcan geare wæs Legeceasterscir gehergod fram norð scipherige .

7 on þam ylcan geare forðferde Ælfstan bisceop on Wiltunscire . 7 his lic lið on þam mynstre æt Abbandune . 7 Wulfgar feng þa to ðam bisceopdome . 7 on þam ylcan geare forðferde Womær abbod on Gent .

982 Her on þys geare comon upp on Dorsætum iii. scypu wicinga 7 hergodon on Portlande .

97

The Reign of Æthelred II

Þy ilcan geare forbarn Lundenbyrig . 7 on þam ylcan geare forðferdon twegen ealdormenn . Æþelmær on Hamtunscire . 7 Eadwine on Suðseaxum . 7 Æþelmæres lic lið on Wintanceastre on niwan mynstre . 7 Eadwines on þam mynstre æt Abbandune . Þæs ylcan geares forðferdon twa abbodessan on Dorsætum . Herelufu on Sceaftesbyrig . 7 Wulfwin on Werham . 7 þy ilcan geare for Odda Romana casere to Greclande . 7 þa gemette he þara Sarcena mycele fyrde cuman upp of sæ . 7 woldon þa faran on hergoð on þæt Cristene folc . 7 þa gefeaht se casere wið hi . 7 þær wæs micel wæl geslægen on gehwæþere hand . 7 se casere ahte wælstowe geweald . 7 hwæðere he þær wæs micclum geswenced . ær he þanon hwurfe . 7 þa he hamweard for . þa forðferde his broþor sunu . se wæs haten Odda . 7 he wæs Leodulfes sunu æþelinges . 7 se Leodulf wæs þæs ealdan Oddan sunu . 7 Eadweardes cininges dohtor sunu .

•

There are variations in MS C which do not feature in MSS E and D, and there are variations in MS E which do not feature in MSS C and D. Some of the variations have a bearing on an appreciation of the Æthelredian Exemplar.

•

One such variation concerns MS C. Its annals for the years 978 to 982 do not align with the annals in MSS D and E. There is a translation of the above extracts from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle at the end of this appendix.573 The annals have been copied from Thorpe’s comparative edition of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, with some minor amendments to punctuation. Also, the annals have been paragraphed for ease of reference. The use of paragraphs does not feature in the original manuscripts, or in the Thorpe edition. Although the passages in MSS D and E are identical in meaning, there are differences in spelling/presentation which have been underlined in MS E or, where there is a word omission in MS E a difference has been underlined in MS D.

The date in the first statement is wrong. Our earliest sources state that King Edward was killed on 10 June 978.575 The second statement is misleading. He may have been buried in some haste but the royal abbey at Wareham was a suitable resting place for a king. The third statement is a great exaggeration. King Edward was a youth of uncertain temper who was unable to maintain order in the realm; his death signalled a return to sound government. Other deeds were more greatly to be regretted, we need go no further than the murder of Edward’s grandfather for an example.576 However this statement is intended to set the scene for what follows. The fourth statement is correct; evidence had been accepted that he was a saint in heaven and a day for his commemoration had been decreed by the royal court at the turn of the tenth century577 at a time when it was

To understand why the annals for 978 to 982 do not align, it is first necessary to examine the famous passage in MSS D and E concerning the death of King Edward (the Martyr), which is the first paragraph in MSS D and E s.a. 979, above. The passage contains certain statements about the death of King Edward that require explanation:574 • • •

In life he was an earthly king; he is now, after death, a heavenly saint. His earthly kinsmen were unwilling to avenge him but his heavenly Father has severely avenged him. Those earthly murderers wanted to destroy his memory on earth but the celestial Avenger has spread abroad his memory in heaven and on earth. Those who before would not bow to his living body now humbly bend their knees to his dead bones. Now we can perceive that men’s wisdom and their contrivance and their deliberations are worthless against God’s purpose.

King Edward was killed on the 18 March 979. He was buried at Wareham without kingly honours. King Edward’s murder was the worst deed amongst the English people since they first came to Britain.

575

For the date, see Appendix I, Chronological analysis, above. The murder of King Edmund is described in MS D s.a. 946 and in MS E s.a. 948. There are erasures in MS A s.a. 946, which may refer to his murder. His death is noted without comment in MSS B and C s.a. 946. John of Worcester provides a more detailed account of the murder s.a. 946: Darlington and McGurk, Chronicle of John of Worcester pp. 398-399 and notes 8 – 13. 577 There is a reference to St Edward’s festival being celebrated on 18 March in the Law Code, V Æthelred, dated 1008, which is written in the style of Archbishop Wulfstan. Wormald, Making of English Law, p. 576

573

See Illustration 9, below. These and other aspects of the reign and death of King Edward were discussed in a paper, ‘King Edward the Martyr: When, How and Why did he die? The problem and a Proposed Solution’, which I read to the Manchester Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies in April 2002. 574

98

Appendix 2: The Æthelredian Exemplar •

official policy to stress the saintly attributes of King Æthelred’s family.578 However, the saintly characteristics of this unruly youth were not clear to everybody.579 The final series of statements have the characteristics of homily. They record the important information that God had punished the perpetrators of the crime and the people who had allowed the crime to go unpunished. It thereby sets the scene for the annals of King Æthelred’s reign in which invasions and devastations on an increasing scale are visited upon the realm, although King Æthelred himself is never blamed personally. The people, weakened by internal treachery and invasions, are unable to avoid Divine punishment. Only after Æthelred’s death and the succession of his son, Edmund, does the theme of ineffective resistance to these ‘punishments’ change to one of very effective and brave resistance. Archbishop Wulfstan, who held high office throughout the period of Scandinavian invasions in Æthelred’s reign, is responsible for many of the Laws and homiletic sources which have come down to us from this period. A call to the people for repentance is a constant theme in his work and is identified as a prerequisite for successful resistance to the invasions.

•

• •

For the historian, the passage in MSS D and E describing the death of King Edward is memorable and important. However, the passage has characteristics which make it unsuited to the purposes of the medieval chronicler. The passage is emotive rather than factual and the information contained therein is misleading or incorrect. That a later writer, who had access to what he regarded as more accurate information, should erase this passage and substitute other annals need be no surprise. MS \C is no longer extant; we know its annals for this period only through its copy MS C. As can be seen in the above extract, translated in Illustration 9, below, MS C has annals for the years 978 to 982 which are quite different from those in MSS D and E. Thus, MS C records: •

•

In 979 a bloody cloud was seen many times in the likeness of fire. Such natural phenomena, seen by contemporaries as indicators of God’s direct interest in human affairs, were often recorded in chronicles. This interpolation may be another indicator that the MS C annals are not contemporary since the reference may be to a natural phenomenon seen on the Continent and recorded in the Chronicle of Sigebert of Gembloux.580 Coastal raiding in annals for 980, 981 and 982. This is information which would have been of considerable interest to the writer of the Æthelredian Exemplar had it been available to him; evidence that these annals were not in MS \C when it was used as a source. Information about deaths and successions to office. Other continental events, which were of considerable interest because they included the death of a great-grandson of King Edward the Elder who was also a scion of the Liudolfinger imperial family.

The annals in MS C for the years 978 to 982 appear to be of a later date than the annals derived, via MS \C, from the Æthelredian Exemplar for subsequent years. It was common practice to annotate chronicles with newly acquired information and also, occasionally, to erase earlier information. This seems to be the explanation for what happened in MS \C. Evidence of this happening occurs when the writer who copied MS C from its exemplar made a mistake. Some information may have been inadequately erased because the consecration of King Æthelred is mentioned twice – once, correctly, s.a. 979 and once, incorrectly, following the Æthelredian Exemplar annal (in MSS D and E) in supposing that he was consecrated in the same year as his accession. Comparing MS C with MSS D and E it can be seen that MS C:

King Edward’s martyrdom and Æthelred’s accession in 978. The date is correct. The use of the term ‘martyrdom’ indicates that the annal is not contemporary. The consecration of King Æthelred in 979 on the Sunday a fortnight after Easter at Kingston and that there were two archbishops and ten suffragan bishops at his consecration. Thus, he was consecrated at the Easter assembly immediately following his accession (King Edward having died in June 978).

•

• •

343, considers the possibility that the reference to St Edward’s festival was a later addition to this legislation. 578 S. J. Ridyard, The Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England: A Study of West Saxon and East Anglian Cults, 1988, pp. 157 – 8 and pp. 164 – 5. 579 Raine, ‘Vita Oswaldi’, p. 449 contrasts Edward unfavourably with his younger brother, Æthelred, and describes how Edward ill-treated his immediate entourage. This early source has no doubts about Edward’s sanctity because, p. 450, it states that after five years in Purgatory Edward was admitted to the presence of God and miracles started to occur at his tomb. However, this source has a passive explanation for his sanctity ‘qui innocenter erat occisus’ (who was killed though blameless); it does not describe a saintly life and actions.

•

Omits the first paragraph of the D/E annal s.a. 979, which may be regarded as emotive and inaccurate. Instead it records the death of Edward and the succession of Æthelred in an annal s.a. 978. Agrees with the second paragraph of the D/E annal that Æthelred was consecrated in 979 but substitutes a more detailed account of the event. Omits the D/E annal for 980 describing the translation of Edward’s body to Shaftesbury and omits the D/E annal for 981 concerning a raid on Southampton, substituting a more detailed account of the raid on Southampton s.a. 980. Records information about coastal raiding, deaths and successions to office, a natural phenomenon and continental events, which did

580 Sigebert’s annals were available in England: see Luard, Annales Monastici, vol. II, pp. xxxi – xxxii and p. 168.

99

The Reign of Æthelred II not feature in the Æthelredian Exemplar as evidenced by MSS D and E.

in distinguishing the original writing. If, as is argued in this paper, MS D is an early copy of the Æthelredian Exemplar, the few occasions on which its original writing differs from MSS C and E, in this final section, are particularly important. This is because they represent amendments made by scribes during or immediately before the Æthelredian Exemplar was copied. There are four occasions when MS D varies from MSS C and E, other than in word spelling and minor copying differences. Two concern successions to office at Abingdon, one in 984 the other in 989, which do not feature in MS D. Two concern additions which are unique to MS D.

This variation, in MS C, from the Æthelredian Exemplar original is by far the most significant. Others are relatively small variations, although some have had significance in relation to the interpretation of historical events. There are variations in the MS C annals s.aa. 983 (adds notice of a papal death), 984 (word omissions; addition of a date), 985 (adds a succession to office – at Abingdon, described three paragraphs below), 990 (adds a death and succession to office – at Abingdon, described three paragraphs below), 999 (following Whitelock’s interpretation in EHD there are two word substitutions – I ascribe them to the manner of copying), 1001 (word substitution), 1002 (word addition), 1004 (phrase addition), 1008 (word omission – the significance of this omission is explained in Appendix 2, Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions), 1009 (word omission in two places; additional phrase identifying ‘Thorkell’s army’), 1010 (phrase omission, concerning the Danes taking horses and controlling East Anglia), 1011 (word addition; word omission), 1012 (word addition), 1013 (following Whitelock’s interpretation in EHD there is a word substitution – I ascribe it to the manner of copying; word omission), 1014 (phrase addition ‘all the councillors who were in England’), 1016 (phrase addition connecting Ealdorman Eadric with the killing of Earl Uhtred; phrase substitution). There are other variations in the annal for 1016 but they occur after the point where folios were removed from MS D, so they are not significant in relation to an understanding of the Æthelredian Exemplar.581

The Abingdon successions to office are in MS E s.aa. 984 and 989. They are: 984: 7 her wæs Eadwine to abb(ode)583 gehalgod to Abbandune, which translates as ‘and here Edwin was consecrated as Abbot of Abingdon’ 989: Her Ædwine abb(od) forðferde . 7 feng Wulfgar to. which translates as ‘Here Abbot Edwin died and Wulfgar succeeded (to office)’. MS C notes the same events but apparently a year later, s.aa 985 and 990: 985: 7 on þam ilcan geare wæs Eadwine to abbode gehalgod to þam mynstre æt Abbandune, which translates as ‘and in the same year Edwin was consecrated abbot of the monastery at Abingdon’

Variations in the MS E annals for the years 979 (recte 978) to 1016 can be seen when they are compared with MSS C and D. The variations from the Æthelredian Exemplar original include: 984 (adds a succession to office – at Abingdon, described two paragraphs below); 988 (phrase addition); 989 (adds a succession to office – at Abingdon, described two paragraphs below); 992 (phrase addition – possibly a Peterborough addition); 999 (phrase addition); 1001 (word addition); 1003 (phrase omission); 1004 (phrase omission); 1006 (adds succession to office, word substitution, two phrase omissions in one passage); 1007 (word substitution); 1008 (word omission – the significance of this omission is explained in Appendix 2, Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions); 1010 (word substitution, word addition); 1011 (phrase omission, word substitution); 1012 (word substitution, phrase substitution); 1013 (Peterborough insertion); 1016 (phrase addition, phrase omission, word addition). There are other variations in the annal for 1016 but they occur after the point where folios were removed from MS D, so they are not significant in relation to an understanding of the Æthelredian Exemplar.582

990: 7 Eadwine abb(od) forðferde . 7 Wulfgar abb(od) feng to þam rice, which translates as ‘And Abbot Edwin died and Abbot Wulfgar ascended to office’. In the early annals of this section, MS E differs from MSS C and D by recording some events under the preceding annal number. Thus, it records a raid on Watchet in 987, which is recorded in MSS C and D in 988; it records the consecration of Archbishop Sigeric in 989, which is recorded in MSS C and D in 990. These are in addition to the annal number differences concerning the Abingdon successions. The explanation is that MS E was maintaining a year commencement (caput anni) of either mid-winter or 1 January, whereas MSS C and D were starting their year in the preceding September (September caput anni). This difference in caput anni usage probably ends with the annal s.a. 991, where there is an apparent change in the nature of the source information available to the writer of the Æthelredian Exemplar.584 There is

The medieval folios in this section of MS D have been annotated in a later hand. However, there is no difficulty 581 582

583

Irvine S, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a Collaborative Edition, Volume 7: MS E, a semi-diplomatic edition with introduction and indices, Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2004, extends the abbreviation as ‘abbot’ rather than ‘abbode’ – for my interpretation, see MS C s.a. 985 584 See Clark C. ‘The Narrative Mode of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle before the Conquest’ in England Before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources

There is an analysis of differences in Illustration 10, see below. There is an analysis of differences in Illustration 11, see below.

100

Appendix 2: The Æthelredian Exemplar York respectively. During 1016 there was a political purpose for the existence and copying of the Æthelredian Exemplar;586 a purpose which did not cease with the death of King Edmund on 30 November 1016, since he was survived by his brother, Eadwig, but which did cease to exist during 1017, when his brother was killed. Although part of the annal for 1016 was subsequently removed from MS D, it is apparent, because the whole annal existed in MSS \C and \E and because of other evidence described below,587 that the Æthelredian Exemplar concluded with the death of Edmund. All these matters combine to show that copying took place within a matter of weeks after the compilation of the Æthelredian Exemplar; that is no earlier than December 1016 and is unlikely to have been much later than the first quarter of 1017. Thus, the two additions, unique to MS D, are amendments made shortly after the annals were copied from the Æthelredian Exemplar into MSS \C and \E, the ancestors of MSS C and E. They probably represent annotations made to the Æthelredian Exemplar during a final read, possibly by the scribe or his sponsor, immediately before it was copied into MS D. The additions occur s.aa. 1007 and 1014:

definite evidence that the attempt to maintain a different caput anni in MS E had ended in the annal s.a. 995, common to MSS C D and E, which records the death of Archbishop Sigeric. Since the archbishop probably died in late October 994,585 it is apparent that all three MSS are agreeing in the use of a September caput anni. These differences are significant. The Æthelredian Exemplar was using a September caput anni for the early annals in this section and the fact that the scribe, who was copying from the Æthelredian Exemplar, was able to adjust the annal numbers of specific events means that the source information was readily available to him. Later in this paper there will be discussion about how this final section of the Æthelredian Exemplar was compiled or composed and evidence will be considered that a list of deaths and successions to office was compiled from a variety of sources and that the writer of the Æthelredian Exemplar was selective about which he chose for inclusion in his annals. Edwin’s succession to office was of particular interest to the monks of Abingdon, the destination of MS \C, indeed they probably supplied the information. So, although the writer of the Æthelredian Exemplar may have chosen to ignore this succession to office, it is no surprise that it was inserted into MS \C. The insertion of the same information into MS \E is particularly interesting for two reasons. Firstly, it is evidence, albeit slight, that the annals from the final section of the Æthelredian Exemplar were copied into MSS \C and \E at the same time – other evidence will be noted below – and secondly, it is evidence that the list of deaths and successions to office, available to the writer of the Æthelredian Exemplar, was a list of specific dates, not just a list in year order. Given the likely manner of compilation from calendar sources, the second observation will be no surprise. However, it signifies that, where MS E has an earlier annal number for an event, the list of specific dates available to the writer of the Æthelredian Exemplar must have shown the events occurring at dates between September and December in the year indicated by MS E. In some instances, this is important information for the purposes of chronological and historical analysis.

1007: Her for Ælfeah bisceop to Rome . æfter pallium, which translates as ‘Here Bishop Ælfheah went to Rome for the pallium’ 1014: 7 þy ilcan geare . man hadode Ælfwig bisceop on Eoforwic to Lundenburuh . on S(an)c(t)a Iuliana mæsse dæg, which translates as ‘And in the same year Ælfwig was consecrated bishop of London, at York on St Juliana’s day (16 February).’ Ælfheah’s journey to Rome for the pallium was to seek Papal recognition of his elevation to the archbishopric of Canterbury. The addition in 1014 is of historical importance. It indicates that King Swein had convened a council of nobles and clergy at York in February. Ælfwig was made bishop of London to replace its bishop who had fled into exile with King Æthelred. Archbishop Wulfstan of York, with other bishops in attendance, must have officiated at the consecration of Ælfwig. Since King Swein died unexpectedly a few days before the ceremony, it indicates a transfer of allegiance to his son, King Cnut. This event, associated with Archbishop Wulfstan, features as a pointer to the sponsorship of the Æthelredian Exemplar.588

There are two additions that are unique to MS D in this final section of the Æthelredian Exemplar. These additions were available to the scribe as he wrote, since they are copied directly into MS D without any indication of later insertion. That this occurred is evidence of the timescales during which copying from the Æthelredian Exemplar took place. That the scribes of MSS \C and \E both added the Abingdon successions just described suggests collusion and that copying took place before the MSS \C and \E manuscripts were returned to Abingdon and York respectively. The caput anni adjustment in annals derived from MS \E show that source material for the Æthelredian Exemplar was still available, and is further evidence that copying took place before the MSS \C and \E manuscripts were returned to Abingdon and

10 Provenance of the Æthelredian Exemplar The relationship existing between the Æthelredian Exemplar and other manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle require discussion in detail, elsewhere. For 586

Reasons why the Æthelredian Exemplar should have been created are discussed in the next section See below [John of Worcester evidence] 588 See below.

presented to Dorothy Whitelock, ed. P. Clemoes and K. Hughes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971, pp. 215-35, p. 225. 585 See Appendix I, Chronological analysis, above.

587

101

The Reign of Æthelred II present purposes, it remains to discuss why, when and where the Æthelredian Exemplar was compiled.

It should be noted that the comparative importance of the annals dealing with Edmund’s activities, as indicated by the word counts, would be much greater if it were not for the homiletic passages in the annals s.aa. 959, 975 and 979, which boost the word count in those annals.590 The homiletic passages in the MS D annals s.aa. 959 and 975 have been recognised as the style of Archbishop Wulfstan. It is probable that the homiletic passage concerning the death of King Edward (the Martyr) s.a. 979 should also be associated with the archbishop on grounds of provenance. If so, the archbishop was personally involved at an early stage in the development of the Æthelredian Exemplar as he was involved in the final stage before a fair copy, MS D, was made, since the phrase about the consecration of a bishop of London s.a. 1014, (see above) probably means Wulfstan read and annotated the Æthelredian Exemplar before it was copied.

Why Looking at the structure of the Æthelredian Exemplar it is seen to be a compilation of early sources to which annals were added covering the reign of King Æthelred II and the exploits of his son, Edmund. This structure is similar to the Alfredian Original, with the difference that King Æthelred does not feature as the hero of the annals. Until the advent of Edmund, there is no central hero. The king fulfils his role of leading and consulting, but action is bedevilled by indecision coupled with the weakness and treachery of leading ealdormen. There are rare exceptions to the general malaise; Ulfcytel leads the forces of the eastern provinces with some limited success against the invaders and Archbishop Ælfheah bravely suffers martyrdom at the hands of the invaders, but these are rare examples of purposeful resistance. In the annals for 1015 and 1016, the description of Edmund’s proactive approach is in sharp contrast to that of his father in the annals 979 (recte 978) to 1016. The contrast between the descriptions of the two kings, Æthelred and Edmund, can be shown by an analysis of references to them in the annals and the comparative importance of Edmund’s activities can be demonstrated by comparing the number of annal words devoted to their reigns. The following passage compares references to Æthelred and Edmund:

The logical conclusion is that the Æthelredian Exemplar was compiled to glorify the exploits of King Edmund during the year 1016 and intended to help consolidate his claim to the throne. If so, the purpose of this enterprise was defeated when King Edmund died on 30 November 1016 before work on the Æthelredian Exemplar was completed. However, his brother Eadwig survived him and there must have been a period, whether for a few weeks or a few months is not known, when those whose interests were aligned to the success of King Edmund must have supported Eadwig’s candidature for the throne. In the event, Eadwig was killed in 1017 and his part in the events of 1015, 1016 and early 1017 are not recorded in our sources, other than to explain how he was killed as a result of treachery and deceit.

An analysis of the references to the two kings and to the number of words relative to their reigns and activities reveals that King Edmund’s valiant struggles against invading Scandinavians and internal treachery are intended to be the focal point of the annals in the Æthelredian Exemplar. This feature is reminiscent of the original Alfredian version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The thirty-eight year reign of King Æthelred is considerably longer than the seven month reign of his son; yet the number of words in the annals from the date of King Æthelred’s accession to the point in the annal for 1015 when the Ætheling Edmund makes his first appearance is 4,752 whilst the number of words from that point until the end of the annal for 1016 is 1,161. This represents an annualised word ratio of 9:1 in favour of Edmund. There are 49 specific references to King Æthelred and 22 to Edmund and the comparison would be more marked if the number of personal pronoun references to Edmund were also taken into account. The annal for 1016, which includes the events of Edmund’s short reign, far exceeds the length of any other annal in this period.589

When The sponsor of the Æthelredian Exemplar must have been a person who commanded the necessary economic and literary resources. Looking at the compilation of early sources, before the addition of the annals covering the reign of King Æthelred, it can be seen that reference was made to Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, an exemplar of MSS B C, Northern annals (which were also used to inform an exemplar of MS E), the Mercian Register591 and other sources such as church calendar references to deaths and successions to office. Similarly, the annals

English text in Cubbin, MS D, ignoring the year number. Name references are from ASC C D E or D E in Whitelock, EHD, pp. 210-27. • King Æthelred, 979 (recte 978) to 1016, is mentioned: Æthelred x 1; King x 32; King and all his councillors x 9; King Æthelred x 7 = total 49. • Edmund is mentioned in 1015: Ætheling Edmund x 2; the Ætheling x 2. • Edmund is mentioned in 1016: Ætheling Edmund x 4; King Edmund x 5; King x 8; liege lord x 1 = total (1015 and 1016) 22. 590 There is an illustration in Howard, ‘Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions’, p. 64, Figure 7, which shows the word count for each annal. 591 The manner of presentation and some of the content makes it unlikely that the Æthelredian Exemplar received the Mercian Register annals directly from MS \C, although they probably used the same source.

589 Howard, ‘Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions’, pp. 61-2. Abbreviations in the passage have been expanded. The word count is from the Old

102

Appendix 2: The Æthelredian Exemplar scene for the disasters of King Æthelred’s reign. As archbishop of York, he could have made the Northern annals and a copy of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History available to his scribes. He would certainly have had the authority and political influence to obtain the use of MS \C, possibly from Abingdon, and the Mercian Register as well as to persuade churches and monasteries to provide historical information from their calendars.

covering the reign of King Æthelred are from different sources; the annals s.aa. 979 (recte 978) to 990 include a homiletic passage concerning the death of King Edward (the Martyr) and are otherwise based on church calendar and similar sources; the annals s.aa. 991 to 1016 are derived from church calendars, taxation schedules and written or verbal recollections of events, many of the annals in this sequence having the appearance of contemporary record. The person who could draw such a wealth of sources together must have had considerable authority. The scribes who took information from these sources were highly educated; they could understand and translate from Bede’s Latin into Old English; they could conjoin several sources within their annals and they could copy in a handsome, clear, Old English script to create the fair copy, MS D. Such scribes were churchmen and even in the eleventh century they were a scarce resource. Even so, they could not work in isolation; they were dependent upon others for the supply of materials such as parchment and ink and they could only have spent the necessary time on the creation of the Æthelredian Exemplar under orders from a superior since they are likely to have been based in a monastic or minster foundation.

Archbishop Wulfstan was interested in the use of the Old English vernacular to promote Christianity – many of his homilies are extant. He also wrote down legal precepts to aid the promulgation of social and church law throughout the king’s realm and many Laws ascribed to the pen of the archbishop are extant. That he should be tempted into sponsoring an up-dated version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is in keeping with such a character and to find entries in his style underpins his interest. It seems likely then that work on an up-dated version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was already well advanced before King Æthelred died. The base information would have needed no amendment other than to include the homiletic passages referred to above and the annals covering the reign of King Æthelred could have been amended to show the workings of God’s punishment on the English; the change in prospects when the innocent Edmund succeeded his father; and the continuing perfidy of Ealdorman Eadric which eventually undermined all Edmund’s courageous work. It is because the Æthelredian Exemplar was in an advanced state of preparation at the beginning of 1016, that it was possible to complete the work in such a short space of time.

Each part of the enterprise required a team effort and must have been sponsored by a powerful leader of society with the necessary resources at his command. The above evidence suggests that the Æthelredian Exemplar was not compiled in a matter of months but probably had a gestation period of several years. This in turn seems to contradict the argument for the purpose of its creation, explained above, since the decision to write a series of annals supporting Edmund’s claim to the throne must relate to the period 1015 – 1016, certainly no earlier than 1014 when his elder brother died. The solution to this conundrum is to be found in understanding the nature of the man who sponsored the Æthelredian Exemplar.

It follows that the Æthelredian Exemplar was a major compilation of sources undertaken over a period of years, commencing some time after 1002, when Wulfstan succeeded to the sees of Worcester and York. Although a compilation was substantially in existence in 1015, the final compilation was undertaken in a period of several months ending shortly after the death of King Edmund in November 1016. It was then that annals for the period 979 to 1016 were copied into MSS \E and \C, following which a fair copy, MS D, of the whole Æthelredian Exemplar was made. This probably occurred in 1017, since political events, including the death of the Ætheling Eadwig, make it less relevant thereafter. Certainly, on the basis of internal evidence, the enterprise must have been completed before 1023; coincidentally the year in which Archbishop Wulfstan died.

From internal evidence it can be deduced that the annals 979 (recte 978) to 1016 were written in or before 1023. The annals were copied into three versions of the AngloSaxon Chronicle, MSS C D and E. These versions are so similar that it is apparent that they shared a common source (exemplar). The annal s.a. 1012 refers to St Ælfheah’s body still being in St Paul’s Minster, London but it is known that his body was translated to Canterbury during the year 1023. The detail in the latter annals, especially that s.a. 1016 is such as to suggest that it is a contemporary record of events.

Where There is one candidate who stands out as the most likely sponsor. He is Archbishop Wulfstan, who held the sees of Worcester and York in plurality from 1002 or 1003 and who died in 1023. In a homiletic passage, in the Æthelredian Exemplar s.a. 959, he sets the scene for King Edgar’s successful reign; in a homiletic passage, in the Æthelredian Exemplar s.a. 975 he extols Edgar’s virtues again but blames him for enticing foreigners (mercenaries) to the land of the English. A homiletic passage in the Æthelredian Exemplar s.a. 979 (recte 978), not previously ascribed to the archbishop, sets the

The Æthelredian Exemplar contains annals s.aa. 979 (recte 978) to 1016, referred to in this paper as a ‘Chronicle of the Reign of Æthelred II (the Unready)’. There has been much speculation over the years as to where these annals were produced but without general agreement. A focus on the Æthelredian Exemplar rather than on its constituent parts makes the identification of place relatively easy. The sources used tend to have a northern or a Mercian provenance and it has been argued, above, that its sponsor was Archbishop Wulfstan, who

103

The Reign of Æthelred II held the sees of York and Worcester in plurality. York was at the centre of much political and military activity during the period when the Æthelredian Exemplar was being compiled and it was a relatively poor ecclesiastical province. Of the two sees held by Archbishop Wulfstan, the wealthy see of Worcester was better endowed with materials and facilities for undertaking the compilation.

blank, and we also have evidence that MS D was at Worcester from its creation.

MS D, the fair copy of the Æthelredian Exemplar has always been identified as a Worcester document, although factual knowledge of its origins does not stretch back to the time of its initial production. However, it was at Worcester in the mid-eleventh century when annals were added, probably at the instigation of Bishop Ealdred of Worcester. As a source for the Chronicle of John of Worcester, it must also have been there in the late eleventh / early twelfth centuries.

Manuscript D (British Library, Cotton Tiberius B iv) of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is clearly a fair copy of an earlier manuscript, to which later annals were added. More exactly, MS D was originally a fair copy up to and including the annal s.a. 1016. In this paper the manuscript from which these annals were copied has been referred to as ‘The Æthelredian Exemplar’.

Logically, taking into account all the above evidence, the Æthelredian Exemplar was compiled at Worcester. 11 Conclusions

Part of the original annal s.a. 1016 is now missing from MS D, having been lost when folios from a final gathering were removed. Most of the lost folios were probably blank. Subsequently, the annal s.a. 1016 was made good, using material derived from other manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and further annals were then added to MS D.

The Chronicle of John of Worcester, which is a Worcester compilation, has information taken from Church calendars, some of which are unique to it. On occasion the information may be erroneous. Given that a compilation of calendar information was made for use in the Æthelredian Exemplar, and the evidence that the scribe was selective in his use of that information, it is possible that this early compilation is the source of the entries in the Chronicle of John of Worcester. If so it is further evidence that the Æthelredian Exemplar was a Worcester compilation.

MS D tends to be the poor relation of manuscript studies for the period up to and including the annal s.a. 1016. This is to be regretted since it is an extremely important source both for what it has to say and for what it implies about our other Chronicle sources. Its importance derives from the fact that, as a fair copy of the Æthelredian Exemplar:

The Chronicle of John of Worcester almost invariably begins its annal years on 1 January or after midwinter (25 December). In the annal for the year 1016, it has information taken from a melodramatic interpretation of a version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle with highly imaginative accretions. This account is continued after the death of King Edmund to take into account the betrayal of the Ætheling Eadwig. In effect, the annal for 1016 in the Chronicle of John of Worcester continues beyond the normal year-end. The annal for 1017 starts again and repeats some information from the previous annal but with a different emphasis.592 It seems that John had two important sources and that he was reluctant to exclude either of them; nor did he wish to amalgamate them. It is possible, that the fair copy of the Æthelredian Exemplar was continued by the addition of an annal for the year 1017, which was subsequently removed – occasioning the loss of part of the annal for 1016. However, the folio containing the annal was preserved and was used as a source by John. If so, we have evidence that most of the folios removed from the end of the fair copy of the Æthelredian Exemplar (MS D) were

• • •

It is an earlier source than MS E and is generally more complete where they share common ancestors, It has taken information via the Æthelredian Exemplar from an ancestor (exemplar) of MS C, Because the annals covering the reign of King Æthelred II were copied into the ancestors of MSS E and C as well as into MS D, it indicates amendments which are now present in MSS E and C.

The provenance of the Æthelredian Exemplar has been examined in this paper and evidence provided showing that it is very likely that it was created on the orders of Archbishop Wulfstan, who held the bishoprics of Worcester and York in plurality; he died as archbishop of York in 1023. It is likely that the archbishop had planned the creation of a version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle over a period of some years; but the political events of the year 1015 persuaded him to have the Æthelredian Exemplar put together in haste so that it could be used to explain the disasters of King Æthelred’s reign and support the cause of Æthelred’s son Edmund in the contest to succeed King Æthelred, who died on 23rd April 1016. Evidence that the Æthelredian Exemplar and its fair copy, MS D, were created at Worcester at some time before the end of 1017 is very strong.

592 Thereafter, John’s annal for 1017 appears to be derived from more than one source. The relationship between John’s annal and the different versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is complex. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle annals in MSS CDE are similar for the years 1017 and 1018 and subsequent annals contain similar phrases. It is evident that, in making good missing material, MS D has drawn upon MS C, although making some amendments. The relationship with MS E is such as to suggest that, in the course of transition, it has been influenced by MS D. These complications are beyond the scope of this paper, which is concerned with an understanding of the Æthelredian Exemplar, and examines MS D as its fair copy until the annal for 1016.

104

Appendix 2: The Æthelredian Exemplar Illustration 9: Translation of Annals in MSS C D and E s.aa. 978 to 982 (see Section 9, above) MS C 978

MS D and MS E 978

Here in this year, King Edward was martyred. And the Ætheling Æthelred, his brother, ascended the throne.

Here in this year, all the chief councillors of the English people fell from an upper floor at Calne, except the holy Archbishop Dunstan (who) alone was left standing upon a beam. And some were severely injured there, and some did not escape it with their life.

And in the same year he was consecrated king. In that year, Alfwold died. He was bishop in Dorset. And his body lies in the Minster at Sherborne.

979

979

Here in this year Æthelred was consecrated as king, on the Sunday a fortnight after Easter at Kingston. And there were two archbishops and ten suffragan bishops at his consecration.

Here, King Edward was killed in the evening on 18 March at Corfesgeate. And then he was buried at Wareham without any kingly honours. No worse English-people deed was done than this was since first they sought out Britain. Men murdered him but God glorified him. He was, in life an earthly king; he is now, after death, a heavenly saint. His earthly kinsmen were unwilling to avenge him but his heavenly Father has severely avenged him. Those earthly murderers wanted to destroy his memory on earth but the celestial Avenger has spread abroad his memory in heaven and on earth. Those who before would not bow to his living body, now humbly bend their knees to his dead bones. Now we can perceive that men’s wisdom and their contrivance and their deliberations are worthless against God’s purpose.

The same year a bloody cloud was seen many times in the likeness of fire. And that was most manifest at midnight and was formed as though in multiple beams of light. When day was dawning then it disappeared.

Here Æthelred succeeded to the kingdom. And very soon after that, with full accord of the witan [elders, councillors] of the English people, he was consecrated as king at Kingston.

980

980

Here in this year, on 2 May, Abbot Æthelgar was consecrated as bishop for the bishopric of Selsey.

Here in this year Ealdorman Ælfhere fetched the holy king’s body from Wareham and accompanied it with great honour to Shaftesbury.

And in the same year Southampton was plundered by a sciphere [invading army arriving by ship]. And its population was mostly killed or enslaved. And the same year Thanet was raided. And the same year Chester was raided by a northern sciphere.

981

981

Here in this year St Petroc’s stow [stow = ‘place’ – probably Padstow, north Cornwall] was raided. And the same year great harm was done everywhere along the coasts both in Devon and in Wales [‘Wales’ means either South Wales or Cornwall; we are being told that the raids were along the coasts of the Bristol Channel]. And in the same year Ælfstan, bishop of Wiltshire, died, and his body lies in the monastery at Abingdon; and Wulfgar then succeeded to the bishopric. And in the same year Womar, abbot of Ghent, died.

Here then first came seven ships and raided Southampton.

982

982 [blank annal]

Here in this year three ships of vikings landed in Dorset and raided in Portland. The same year the buhr of London burned. [buhr = walled town; the buildings within the buhr were of wood, etc., so fire was a constant hazard] And in the same year two ealdormen died; Æthelmær of Hampshire and Edwin of Sussex. And Æthelmær’s body lies in the new minster at Winchester and Edwin’s in the monastery at Abingdon. That same year two abbesses in Dorset died; Herelufu of Shaftesbury and Wulfwyn of Wareham. And the same year the Roman Cæsar Otto [Otto II] went to the land of the Greeks [in context = south Italy, then part of the Byzantine Empire]. And then he came against the great Saracen invading army, landed from the sea and then wanting to visit ravaging on the Christian people. And then the Cæsar fought with them. And there was great slaughter on either side; And the Cæsar possessed the place of slaughter [i.e. gained the victory]; and yet he was much harassed there before he left. And when he was returning home, his brother’s son died. He was called Otto and he was the son of the Ætheling Liudolf; and this Liudolf was the son of the elder Otto [Otto I, the Great] and the son of King Edward’s daughter [i.e. Edith, daughter of Edward the Elder].

105

The Reign of Æthelred II Illustration 10. Amendments to MS C as evidenced by an examination of MSS D and E (see Section 9, above) Given that the annals in MSS C D and E are derived from the same source, the Æthelredian Exemplar, agreement of DE against C is solid evidence that at some stage in the derivation of MS C from the Æthelredian Exemplar via MS \C there has been an alteration. The differences referred to in the paper include: MS C 983

MS D 983

MS E 983

984

984

984

Her forðferde Aþelwold b(isceop) on K(a)l(endas) Agustus. (Here Bishop Æthelwold died on 1 August)

Her forðferde se halga bisceop Æþelwold . muneca fæder.

Her forðferde se halga biscop Æðelwold . muneca fæder.

(Here the holy Bishop Æthelwold died, father of the monks)

(Here the holy Bishop Æthelwold died, father of the monks) *

985

985

985

990

990

999

999

999

7 ridan swa hwider swa hi sylf woldon (and rode wherever they pleased) þa ylcodan þa deman fram dæge to dæge (the judges delayed from day to day)

7 ridon swa wide swa hi sylf woldon (and rode as widely as they pleased) þa ilkede man fram dæge to dæge (there was delay from day to day)

7 ridon swa wide swa hi woldon sylf (and rode as widely as they pleased) þa elkede man fram dæge to dæge (there was delay from day to day)

1001

1001

1001

7 sona swa hi togædere coman . þa beah þ(æt) folc (and as soon as they had come together (i.e. joined battle) then the people fled)

7 sona swa hi togædere fengon . þa beah seo Ænglisce fyrd (and as soon as they had joined together (i.e. joined battle) then the English army fled)

7 sona swa hi togædere fengon . þa beah seo Englisce fyrd (and as soon as they had joined together (i.e. joined battle) then the English army fled)

1002

1002

1002

7 on þam geare se cyng het ofslean ealle þa Deniscan men þe on Angelcynne wæron . Ðis wæs gedon on Britius massedæig (And in that year the king ordered to be slain all the Danish men who were amongst the English people. This was done on St Brice’s day)

7 on þam geare se cyng het ofslean ealle þa Deniscan men þe on Angelcynne wæron . on Britius mæssedæg (And in that year the king ordered to be slain all the Danish men who were amongst the English people. on St Brice’s day)

7 on ðam geare se cyng het ofslean ealle ða Deniscan men þe on Angelcynne wæron . on Bricius messedæg (And in that year the king ordered to be slain all the Danish men who were amongst the English people. on St Brice’s day)

1004

1004

1004

7 Benedictus p(a)p(a) forþferde. (and Pope Benedict died)

7 on þam ilcan geare wæs Eadwine to abbode gehalgod to þam mynstre æt Abbandune. (And in the same year Edwin was consecrated abbot of the monastery at Abingdon)

990 7 Eadwine abb(od) forðferde . 7 Wulfgar abb(od) feng to þam rice. (And Abbot Edwin died and Abbot Wulfgar ascended to office)

Þa on mergen . ða hi to scipon woldon . Ða on mergen þa hi to scypon woldon . Þa on morgen þa hi to scypu woldon . þa com Ulfcytel þa cwom Ulfcytel mid his werode . þ(æt) þam com Ulfkytel mid his wærode .** 7 mid his werode . 7 hi þær togædere feastlice fengon hi ðær togædere fon sceoldon . 7 hi þær hi ðær togædere fæstlice fengon (Then in (Then in the morning, when they wanted to go to their togædere fæstlice fengon (Then in the the morning, when they wanted to go to ships, Ulfcetel approached with his troop. And they morning, when they wanted to go to their their ships, Ulfcetel approached with his resolutely joined battle there) ships, Ulfcetel approached with his troop troop. And they resolutely joined battle to offer battle there. And they resolutely there) joined battle there) 1008 The final part of this annal, probably taken from a taxation schedule, must have been deficient. For the attempts to interpret it in MSS C D E and F see Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions, Appendix 2, pp. 163-167. As reconstructed there the original Æthelredian Exemplar words, with an omission corrected in round brackets, are ‘þæt is þonne of þrym hund hidum an scip . 7 of x. hidum (helm 7 byrnan) 7 be tynum hund hidum anne scægð 7 of viii. hidum helm 7 byrnan .’ (selected units of three hundred hides should provide a ship plus (a helmet and corselet) for every 10 hides, and selected units of ten hundred hides should provide a large warship plus a helmet and corselet for every 8 hides.)

1009

1009

1009

Brihtric . Eadrices broðor ealdormannes . forwregde Wulfnoð cild to þam cyninge (Brihtric, Ealdorman Eadric’s brother, accused Wulfnoth Cild to the king)

Brihtric . Eadrices broþor ealdormannes . forwregde Wulfnoð cild þone Suðseaxcisan to þam cynge (Brihtric, Ealdorman Eadric’s brother, accused Wulfnoth Cild, the South Saxon, to the king)

Brihtric . Eadrices broðor ealdormannes . forwregde Wulfnoð cild . þone Suðseaxcian . to þam cyning (Brihtric, Ealdorman Eadric’s brother, accused Wulfnoth Cild, the South Saxon, to the king)

7 þ(æt) folc þa . þ(æt) on ðam scipon wæron . fercodon eft to Lundene (And then the people that were on the ships

7 þæt folc þa . þæt on þam scypon wæron . fercodon þa scypo eft to

106

7 þet folc þa . þe on ðam scype wæron . færcodon þa scypo eft to Lundene (And then the people that were on the ships brought the ships again to London)

Appendix 2: The Æthelredian Exemplar proceeded once more to London)

Lundenne (And then the people that were on the ships brought the ships again to London)

þa com sona æfter hlammessan se ungemetlica unfrið here to Sandwic (Then soon after Lammas the immense hostile raiding army came to Sandwich)

þa com sona æfter lafmæssan se ungemætlica unfrið here . þe we heton Ðurkilles here . to Sandwic (Then soon after Lammas the immense hostile raiding army, which we called Thorkel’s army, came to Sandwich)

ða com sona æfter lafmæssan se ungemetlica unfrið here to Sandwic (Then soon after Lammas the immense hostile raiding army came to Sandwich)

1010

1010

1010

7 þa Denan ahton wælstowe geweald . 7 þone eard III. monþas heregodon 7 bærndon (And the Danes had the victory and ravaged and burned that country for three months)

7 þa Denan ahton weallstowe geweald . 7 þær wurdon gehorsode . 7 syþþan ahton Eastengla geweald . 7 þone eard þry monðas heregodon 7 bærndon (And the Danes had the victory and there took to horse and afterwards had control of East Anglia and ravaged and burned that country for three months)

7 þa Dæniscan ahton wælstowe geweald . 7 þær wurdon gehorsode . 7 syððan ahton East Engle geweald . 7 þone eard III. monþas heregodon 7 bærndon (And the Danes had the victory and there took to horse and afterwards had control of East Anglia and ravaged and burned that country for three months)

1011

1011

1011

Ealle þas ungesælða us gelumpon þuruh unrædas . þ(æt) man nolde him a timan gafol beodon oþþe wið gefeohtan (All those disasters befell us through bad policy in that they were never offered tribute in time nor fought against) on þære earman byrig . þanon com ærest cristendom 7 blis (in that wretched burh from which first came Christianity and divine fulfilment)

Ealle þa ungesælþa us gelumpon þurh unrædas . þæt man nolde a timan gafol beodan (All those disasters befell us through bad policy in that they were never offered tribute in time)

Ealle þas ungesælða us gelumpon þurh unrædes . þ(æt) man nolde him to timan gafol bedan (All those disasters befell us through bad policy in that they were never offered tribute in time)

1012

1012

1012

on ðone Sunnan æfen . octab(as) Pasce . þa wæs XIII. K(a)l Mai . 7 hine þær ða bysmorlica acwylmdon . oftorfedon mid banum 7 mid hryþera heafdum (on the eve of the Sunday of the octave of Easter, which was 19 April, and shamefully put him to death there, they pelted him with bones and with oxheads)

on þone Sunnan æfen . XIII. K(a)l Mai . octabas Pasche . 7 hi ðær þa oftorfedon mid banum 7 mid hryþera neata heafdum (on the eve of the Sunday, 19 April, in the octave of Easter, and there they pelted him with bones and with cattle oxheads)

on þone Sunnan efen . octabas Paschæ . 7 hine þa þær oftorfodon mid banum 7 mid hryðera heafdum (on the eve of the Sunday, 19 April, in the octave of Easter, and there they pelted him with bones and with ox-heads)

1013

1013

1013

Fifburhingum (Five Boroughs)

Fifburgum (Five Boroughs)

Fifburhingan (Five Boroughs)

Þa he ðus gefaren hæfde (When he had overcome thus)

7 þa he æl þus gefaren hæfde (And when he had overcome all thus)

Þa he eall þus gefaren heafde (When he had overcome all thus)

1014

1014

1014

Þa geræddon þa witan ealle þe on Englalande wæron . gehadode 7 læwede . þ(æt) man æfter þam cyninge Æþelrede sende . (Then all the councillors that were in England, ecclesiastical and lay, determined to send for King Æthelred)

Þa ræddon þa witan ealle . gehadode 7 læwede . þæt man æfter þam cyninge Æþelrede sende . (Then all the councillors, ecclesiastical and lay, determined to send for King Æthelred)

Þa geræddan þa witan ealle . ge hadode ge læwede . þ(æt) man æfter þam cyninge Æðelrede sende . (Then all the councillors, both ecclesiastical and lay, determined to send for King Æthelred)

1016

1016

1016

on þære earman byrig . þanon us com ærest cristendom 7 bliss (in that wretched burh from which first came to us Christianity and divine fulfilment)

on þære ærman byrig . þanon us com ærest Xr(ist)endom 7 blisse (in that wretched burh from which first came to us Christianity and divine fulfilment)

7 he gislode . 7 hine mon ðeahhwæþere 7 he gislode . 7 hine man þeahhwæðere 7 he gislode . 7 hine man ðeahhwæðere ofsloh . 7 ofsloh ðuruh Eadrices ræd ealdormannes ofsloh . 7 Þurhcytel Nafen sunu mid him Þurcytel Nafanan sunu mid him (And he [Uhtred] gave hostages. And nevertheless he was slain and Thurcetel, . 7 Þurcytel Nafenan sunu mid him (And (And he [Uhtred] gave hostages. And Nafena’s son, with him.) he [Uhtred] gave hostages. And nevertheless he was slain and Thurcetel, nevertheless he was slain by the advice Nafena’s son, with him.) of Ealdorman Eadric and Thurcetel, He geendode his dagas on S(an)c(tu)s Georius*** Nafena’s son, with him.) mæssedæge . æfter mycclum geswince 7 earfoðnissum He geendode his dagas on S(an)c(t)e He geendode his dagas on S(an)c(t)e his lifes (He [Æthelred] ended his days on St George’s Georgius mæssedæig . 7 he geheold his Georgius mæssedæg . æfter myclum day after great toil and afflictions of his life) rice mid myclum geswince 7 geswince 7 earfoðnyssum his lifes (He earfoðnessum . þa hwile ðe his life wæs [Æthelred] ended his days on St (He [Æthelred] ended his days on St George’s day after great toil and George’s day and he had held his afflictions of his life) kingdom with great toil and difficulties as long as his life lasted) * Indicates that there is a variation in MS E, which is described in the following note. Presentation differences between MSS D and E are underlined in E. ** Here Thorpe includes the phrase ‘þ(æt) hi þær togædere fon sceoldon .’ in error. I have checked that the phrase is not in MS D by reference to a facsimile of the manuscript which I had previously compared with the original manuscript. *** Thorpe has ‘Georgius’. I have followed Irvine’s reading.

107

The Reign of Æthelred II Illustration 11. Amendments to MS E as evidenced by an examination of MSS C and D (see Section 9, above) Given that the annals in MSS C D and E are derived from the same source, the Æthelredian Exemplar, agreement of DC against E is solid evidence that at some stage in the derivation of MS E from the Æthelredian Exemplar via MS \E there has been an alteration. The differences referred to in the paper include: MS C 984

MS D 984

MS E 984 7 her wæs Eadwine to abb(ode) gehalgod to Abbandune (And here Edwin was consecrated abbot of Abingdon) *

988

988

988

Her gefor Dunstan arcb(isceop) (Here Archbishop Dunstan died)

Her gefor Dunstan arcebisceop (Here Archbishop Dunstan died)

7 her Dunstan se halga arceb(isceop) forlet þis lif . 7 geferde þ(æt) heofonlice (And here Dunstan the holy archbishop left this life and attained the heavenly)

989 Her Æadwine abb(od) forðferde . 7 feng Wulfgar to (Here Abbot Edwin died and Abbot Wulfgar succeeded) **

992

992

992

feng Ealdulf abb(od) to Eoforwic stole . 7 to Wigernaceastre (Abbot Ealdwulf succeeded to the see of York and to Worcester)

feng Ealdulf abb(od) to Eoforwic stole . 7 to Wigærnaceastre (Abbot Ealdwulf succeeded to the see of York and to Worcester)

feng Ealdulf abb(od) of Burch to Eoferwic stole . and to Wigeraceastre (Ealdwulf, Abbot of Peterborough, succeeded to the see of York and to Worcester)

999

999

999

7 com þa seo Centisce fyrd þar ongean . 7 hi ða þær fæste togædere fengon . ac wala þ(æt) hi to raðe bugon 7 flugon (And the Kentish levy came against them there and they then joined battle stoutly. But alas they too soon turned and fled)

7 com þa se Centisce fyrd þær ongean . 7 hi ða þær fæste togædre fengon . ac wala wa þ(æt) hi to hraðe bugon 7 flugon (And the Kentish levy came against them there and they then joined battle stoutly. But alas they too soon turned and fled)

7 com þa seo Centisce fyrde þær ongean . 7 hi þær fæste togedere fengon . Ac wala þ(æt) hi to hraðe bugon 7 flugon . forþam þe hi næfdon fultum þe hi habban sceoldan (And the Kentish levy came against them there and they then joined battle stoutly. But alas they too soon turned and fled because they did not have the support which they should have had)

1001

1001

1001

ac him mon swiðe heardlice wiðstod (but they were very stoutly resisted)

ac him mon swyðe heardlice wiðstod (but they were very stoutly resisted)

ac him man swyðe fæstlice wiðstod 7 heardlice (but they were very resolutely resisted and stoutly)

1003

1003

7 on þam ilcan geare eode se here up into Wiltunscire (And in the same year the invading army went inland into Wiltshire)

7 on þam ilcan geare eode se here up into Wiltunscire (And in the same year the invading army went inland into Wiltshire)

1004

1004

1004

Ac gif þ(æt) fulle mægen ðær wære . ne eodon hi næfre eft to scipon . swa hi sylfe sædon . þ(æt) hi næfre wyrsan handplegan on Angelcynne ne gemitton . þonne Ulfcytel him to brohte (But if their full strength had been there, they would never have got back to their ships, as they themselves said that they never met worse fighting amonst the English people than Ulfcytel dealt to them)

Ac gif þ(æt) fulle mægen þær wære . ne eodon hi næfre eft to scypon . swa hi sylfe sædon . þ(æt) hi næfre wyrsan handplegan on Angelcynne ne gemetton . þonne Ulfkytel him brohte (But if their full strength had been there, they would never have got back to their ships, as they themselves said that they never met worse fighting amonst the English people than Ulfcytel dealt to them)

Ac gif þet fulle mægen þær wære . ne eodon hi næfre eft to scipon . swa hi sylfe sædon . (But if their full strength had been there, they would never have got back to their ships, as they themselves said)

1006

1006

1006

7 on þam ilcan geare wæs Wulfgeate eall his ar ongenumen (And in the same year was Wulfgeat deprived of all his property)

7 on ðam ilcan geare wæs Wulfgeate eall his are ongenumen (And in the same year was Wulfgeat deprived of all his property)

7 Brihtwold b(isceop) feng to þam rice on Wiltunscire . 7 Wulfgeate wæs eall his are ofgenumen (And Bishop Brihtwold succeeded to office in Wiltshire, and Wulfgeat was deprived of all his property)

7 þa ofer þone midne sumor com þa se micla flota to Sandwic (And then after midsummer the great fleet came to Sandwich)

7 ða ofer þone midne sumor com se micla flota to Sandwic (And then after midsummer the great fleet came to Sandwich)

Wendon þa to Wealingaforda . 7 þ(æt) eall forswældon . 7 wæron him ða ane niht æt Ceolesige . 7 wendon him þa iandlang Æscesdune to Cwicelmes hlæwe . 7 þær onbidedon beotra gylpa . forðon oft man cwæð . gif hi Cwicelmes hlæw gesohton . þ(æt) hi næfre to sæ gan ne scoldon (Then

Wendon þa to Wealingæforda . 7 þæt eall forswælldon . 7 wæron him ða ane niht æt Ceolesege . 7 wendon him ða andlang Æscesdune to Cwichelmes hlæwe . 7 þær onbidedon beotra gylpa . forþan oft man cwæð . gif hi Cwichelmes hlæwe gesohton . þ(æt) hi

108

7 þa ofer þone midne sumor com þa se Denisca flota to Sandwic (And then after midsummer the Danish fleet came to Sandwich) 7 ferdon þa to Wealingaforda . 7 þet eall forsweldon . 7 wændon him þa andlang Æscesdune Cwicchelmes hlæwe gesohton (And then went to Wallingford and burnt it all, and then turned along Ashdown to seek Cuckhamsley Barrow)

Appendix 2: The Æthelredian Exemplar turned to Wallingford and burnt it all, and were one night at Cholsey, and then turned along Ashdown to Cuckhamsley Barrow and waited there for what had been proudly threatened, for it had often been said that if they went to Cuckhamsley Barrow, they would never get to the sea)

næfre to sæ gangen ne sceoldan (Then turned to Wallingford and burnt it all, and were one night at Cholsey, and then turned along Ashdown to Cuckhamsley Barrow and waited there for what had been proudly threatened, for it had often been said that if they went to Cuckhamsley Barrow, they would never get to the sea)

1007

1007

1007

Her on ðissum geare wæs þ(æt) galfol gelæst þam here . þ(æt) wæs XXXVI. þusend p(unda) (Here in this year, the tribute was paid to the enemy army; that was thirty-six thousand pounds)

Her on þissum geare wæs þ(æt) galfol gelæst þæm unfrið here . þæt wæs XXXVI. þusend punda (Here in this year, the tribute was paid to the enemy army; that was thirty-six thousand pounds)

Her on ðissum geare wæs þet galfol gelæst þam unfriðe here . þ(æt) wæs XXX. þusend punda (Here in this year, the tribute was paid to the enemy army; that was thirty thousand pounds)

1008 See explanation s.a. 1008 in the previous note.

1010

1010

1010

7 þonne hi to scipon ferdon . þonne sceolde fyrd ut eft ongean þ(æt) hi up woldon (And when they were journeying to their ships the local army should have come out again in case they wished to go inland)

7 þonne hi to scipon ferdon . þonne scolde fyrd ut æft ongean þ(æt) hi up woldon (And when they were journeying to their ships the local army should have come out again in case they wished to go inland)

7 þone hi to scipon streddon . þonne sceolde fyrd ut eft ongean þ(æt) hi up woldon (And when they were dispersing to their ships the local army should have come out again in case they wished to go inland)

þa com se here to Hamtune . 7 þ(æt) port sona forbærndon . 7 ðær abutan . swa mycel swa hi sylfe woldon (Then the invading army came to (North)hampton and at once burnt the town and as much round about it as they pleased)

þa com se here to Hamtune . 7 þæt port sona forbærndon . 7 þær abutan . swa mycel swa hi sylf woldon (Then the invading army came to (North)hampton and at once burnt the town and as much round about it as they pleased)

1011

1011

7 micel X. on Hamtunscire (and 10. much of (North)hamptonshire)

7 micel on Hamtunscire X. (and 10. much of (North)hamptonshire)

7 Leofrune abb(a)t(issa) (and Abbess Leofrun)

ða com se here to Hamtune . 7 þone port sona forbærndon . 7 þær namon abuton swa mycel swa hi woldon sylfe (Then the invading army came to (North)hampton and at once burnt the town and seized as much round about it as they pleased)

1011

7 Leofrune abb(a)t(issa) (and Abbess Leofrun)

7 Leofwine abb(od) (and Abbot Leofwine)

1012

1012

1012

þ(æt) wæs ehta 7 feowertig þusend punda (that was forty-eight thousand pounds)

þ(æt) wæs ehta 7 feowertig þusend punda (that was forty-eight thousand pounds)

þ(æt) wæs VIII. þusend punda (that was eight thousand pounds)

7 mon þone lichaman on mergen ferode to Lundene . 7 þa bisceopæs Eadnoð 7 Ælfun . 7 seo buruhwaru hine underfengon (And in the morning the corpse was carried to London and there Bishops Eadnoth and Ælfhun and the citizens received it)

7 mon þone lichamon on mærgen færede to Lundene . 7 þa bisceopæs Eadnoð 7 Ælfun . 7 seo burhwaru hine underfengon (And in the morning the corpse was carried to London and there Bishops Eadnoth and Ælfhun and the citizens received it)

7 þa biscopas Eadnoð 7 Ælfhun . 7 seo burhwaru underfengon þone haligan lichaman on mergen . 7 feredon hine to Lundene (And then Bishops Eadnoth and Ælfhun and the citizens received the holy corpse in the morning and brought it to London)

1013 There is a late Peterborough insertion concerning the collection of relics by Abbot Ælfsige whilst he was in exile with Queen Emma.

1016

1016

1016

Her on þissum geare . com Cnut mid his here (Here in this year, Cnut came with his invading army)

Her on þissum geare . com Cnut mid his here (Here in this year, Cnut came with his invading army)

Her on þissum geare . com Cnut cyning mid his here C.LX. scipa (Here in this year, King Cnut came with his invading army of 160 ships)

ðanon to Huntadunscire . swa into Hamtunscire . 7lang fennes to Stanforda (thence to Huntingdonshire, then into (North)hamptonshire, along the fens to Stamford)

7 þanon to Huntadunscire . swa into Hamtunscire . andlang fennes to Stanforda (and thence to Huntingdonshire, then into (North)hamptonshire, along the fens to Stamford)

7 þa æfter ðam gesette se cyng Yric into Norðhymbron . him to eorle (And then after that the king put Eric in Northumbria, as earl)

7 þa æfter þæm se cyng gesette Yric into Norðhymbron to eorle (And then after that the king put Eric in Northumbria, as earl)

* Cf. MS C s.a. 985 in the previous note ** Cf. MS C s.a. 990 in the previous note

109

7 þanon to Huntandunscire . 7lang fennes to Stanforda (and thence to Huntingdonshire, along the fens to Stamford)

7 þa æfter þam se cyng Cnut gesætte Yric into Norðhymbran to eorle (And then after that King Cnut put Eric in Northumbria, as earl)

Appendix 3: Fiscal Policy and the Manipulation of the Currency during the Reigns of Edgar (the Peaceable), Edward (the Martyr), Æthelred II (the Unready) and Cnut (the Great)593

12: Coins of Edgar, Edward, Æthelred II and Cnut listed by weight Edg Em C2 A Grammes 1.95– 1.90– 1.94 1.85– 1.89 1.80– 1.84 1.75– 1.79 1.70– 1.74 1.65– 1.69 1.60– 1.64 1.55– 1.59 1.50– 1.54 1.45– 1.49 1.40– 1.44 1.35– 1.39 1.30– 1.34 1.25– 1.29 1.20– 1.24 1.15– 1.19 1.10– 1.14 1.05– 1.09 1.00– 1.04 0.95– 0.99 0.90– 0.94 0.85– 0.89 0.80– 0.84 0.75– 0.79 0.70– 0.74 – 0.69 No. of coins Mean weight Median weight

ÆII A1

B1

B2

B3 -

1 1 12 20 21 13 4 3 3 5 1 1 1 87

C

A2

D

10 5 10 22 54 290 622 600 376 412 427 541 394 321 290 225 163 98 34 21 6 5 1 1 4930

E

39 14 14 1 83 5 375 5 1106 8 993 3 705 2 407 1 335 1 308 1 426 415 305 163 100 46 33 13 8 7 3 2 2 2 2 27 5906

G

4 4 30 2 40 5 35 16 31 22 18 26 23 27 11 25 8 20 5 18 4 15 16 3 7 3 2 1 219 209

-

1 2 1 6 44 103 172 3 144 6 153 1 105 6 83 12 53 19 45 9 41 8 23 2 16 4 10 3 12 4 1 2 2 80 1021

1 5 5 11 25 32 45 59 59 86 81 100 53 47 24 7 6 2 2 650

1 1 3 5 7 21 169 371 449 230 189 145 122 97 77 45 24 12 2 1 4 2 1 1978

1.53 1.38

1.32 1.51

1.32 1.60

1.48

1.66 1.57

1.37

1.58 1.38

1.32 1.52

1.32 1.62

1.48

1.68 1.62

1.42

A3 2 1 1 10

Cn E

H

3 1 2 1 4 1 14 1 1 93 2 186 1 1 129 2 180 3 83 10 102 35 1 197 74 1 362 112 372 113 5 498 175 3 3 484 205 7 5 483 197 55 74 288 281 321 491 283 623 846 1093 171 774 933 623 136 1092 1598 449 70 658 769 260 59 563 421 152 33 326 245 90 11 199 157 54 1 83 68 13 2 40 31 8 4 19 11 6 4251 5590 5474 3325

1.76 1.33 -

G

1.32

1.06 1.03

1.08

1.02 1.02

1.12

The different issues of coins are identified as follows: Edgar (Edg) C2 = Reform Small Cross. Edward the Martyr (Em) A = Normal Small Cross. Æthelred (ÆII) A1 = First Small Cross; B1 = First Hand; B2 = Second Hand; B3 = Benediction Hand; C = Crux; A2 = Intermediated Small Cross; D = Long Cross; E = Helmet; G = Agnus Dei; A3 = Last Small Cross. Cnut (Cn) E = Quatrefoil; G = Pointed Helmet; H = Short Cross. The information in the above table is extracted from K. Jonsson, ‘Cnut’s coinage’ table 11.2, in The Reign of Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway, ed. A. R. Rumble: London, 1994, p. 203. Jonsson based his table on Table I, H. B. A. Petersson ‘Coins and weights. Late Anglo-Saxon pennies and mints c. 973-1016’ in Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon Coinage in memory of Bror Emil Hildebrand, ed. K. Jonsson: Stockholm, 1990, p. 347. An analysis of Jonsson’s table reveals some small anomalies, which arise on a simplification of the data; these have no bearing upon the observations made in this paper.

593 This paper is based on a presentation which I made at the Leeds International Medieval Congress in July 1999, entitled ‘The Fiduciary Element in English Silver Coins in the Late Tenth and Early Eleventh Centuries’.

110

Appendix 3: Fiscal Policy and the Manipulation of the Currency their notions of arithmetic.596 The strength and value of the numbers 16 and 12 are demonstrable and they have withstood the usage of the decimal [9+1=] ten digits until the beginning of the 21st century. In an age before Arabic decimalisation was known in northern Europe, arithmetic and mathematical sciences were based upon the numerical relationships within the numbers 16 and 12; and in numerical relationships based on Latin notation: I. V. X. L. C. M. With such a background it will be appreciated that it was natural to use the number 16 in relation to the division of coinage. Indeed the use of the number 16 in relation to the division of coinage may be traced back to Roman times in Britain.597 However, there is an anomaly with regard to the division of the Anglo-Saxon pound value. Whilst there are 16 pennies in an ora, there are only 15 oras in a pound; a concept which may descend from the Mercian 15 ounce pound. However derived, there were 16 x 15, or 240 pennies in a pound.598 King Æthelred’s laws are specific about this matter:

Much information about English coinage is available from which it is apparent that at the heart of English fiscal policy in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries there was a fiduciary issue of coinage. That is, the government and people understood and accepted that 240 silver pennies stamped by an official moneyer were equivalent to a ‘pound’ of silver whatever the weight of those 240 coins. This appendix is based upon an analysis of coins dating from the period c. 973, when the coinage was reformed, to the reign of King Cnut, when the effect of his devaluation of the English coinage is evident. An analysis of the extant coins is provided at Illustration 12. The number ‘16’ Throughout the period under consideration, the English coinage was based on the silver penny. The Anglo-Saxons had the concept of a pound value which is referred to in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and also in a treaty which King Æthelred made with a Viking army in 994.594 No pound coin existed, however. It was represented by a number of silver pennies. Assuming the pound value was related to the pound weight, it could be deduced that the weight of the English silver penny was a significant matter.

And those who have the charge of towns shall see to it, under pain of incurring the fine for insubordination to me, that every weight is stamped according to the standard employed in my mint; [Lit. ‘according to the weight for which my money is accepted.’] and the stamp used for each of them shall show that the pound contains 15 ores. 599

In the British (Imperial) pound weight, there are 16 ounces and each ounce is made up of 16 drams; so there are [16 x 16 =] 256 drams in a pound.595 There has been compulsory uniformity of British weights since 1st January 1826. The Anglo-Saxon pound weight differed from the modern pound weight, a matter referred to later in this paper. However, it is the 16 x 16 division of the pound which is important to the present discussion. The numerical relationships available within the number 16 are significant. Half 16 is 8; half 8 is 4; half 4 is 2; half 2 is 1; 2 multiplied by itself is 4; 4 multiplied by itself is 16. The gap between 8 and 16 may be filled by the number 12; 8 is two-thirds of 12 and 12 is three-quarters of 16. 12 opens up the use of the numbers 3 and 6; 3 multiplied by itself is 9.

The concept of 15 oras or 240 pennies in a pound is illogical; one should expect to find 256 pennies in a pound; that is a multiplication of the number 16 by itself. So what happened to the missing ora of 16 pennies? Anglo-Saxon moneyers Once it is apparent that an ora of 16 pennies is, in a manner of speaking, ‘missing’, it is relatively easy to deduce what happened to it. Much can be gleaned about the people who coined money in England during this period and whose names feature on the reverse of the silver pennies.600 It was a task which was subject to

In the tenth and eleventh centuries the concept of zero [‘0’] after the ninth digit, which we refer to as decimalization, was not understood in Anglo-Saxon England and the relationship between the numbers 5, 10 and 100 was only significant in terms of Latin notation. In the mid-tenth century the scholar Gerbert d’Aurillac brought the ninedigit abacus from Spain and introduced it to the rest of Europe. He did not bring the zero and so decimalization as we know it [nine Arabic digits followed by '0'] was not available to the Anglo-Saxons when they were developing

596

See H. P. Lattin (trns.), The Letters of Gerbert with his Papal Privileges as Sylvester II: New York, 1961, p. 19 and notes 35 quoting Richer, III, liv; and 36-8 quoting Bubnov, Gerberti opera mathematica, pp.8-22; 245-84; 291. Lattin says: ‘For two hundred years after Gerbert’s time the abacists reigned supreme and only slowly retreated before the onslaught of the zero with its fantastic properties.’ ibid. p. 19. 597 Writing about the Roman site at Vindolanda, R. Birley says: 'Another tablet discussed by Bowman and Thomas is an accountant's delight: it is a list of goods, together with their prices, and the prices include fractions of a denarius, each fraction having its own symbol - a quarter, eighth and a sixteenth - and a sixteenth of a denarius which is an as. [Current Archaeology 153, Vol. XIII, no.9, July 1997, p. 353.] 598 P. Nightingale, ‘The Ora, the Mark, and the Mancus: Weight-Standards and the Coinage in Eleventh-Century England, Part 2’ in Numismatic Chronicle, vol. CXLIV (1984), p. 234-6. 599 A. J. Robertson (ed. and trans.), The Laws of the Kings of England from Edmund to Henry I: Cambridge, 1925, pp. 78-9, IV Æthelred, 9.2: Et ipsi qui portos custodiunt, efficiant per overhernessam meam, ut omne pondus sit marcatum ad pondus quo pecunia mea recipitur; et eorum singulum signetur ita, cur XV orae libram faciant. This is evidence of the strict control of the weights against which coins were measured. 600 Strictly speaking, a moneyer whose name appears on a coin may not have made it although he was fully responsible for its weight and purity: Et

594 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, versions CDE s.aa. 991, 994, 1002, 1007, 1009, 1012, 1014, 1018: see D. Whitelock (ed.), English Historical Documents, vol. I, c.500-1042: London, 1955, pp. 213-28, and ‘King Æthelred’'s treaty with the viking army (994)’, appendix to S. Keynes ‘The Historical Context of the Battle of Maldon’ in Scragg D. (ed.), The Battle of Maldon AD 991: Oxford, 1991, pp.103-107. 595 The weights quoted here are 'avoirdupois'. There is a ‘modern’ measure which is less than a dram. It is the grain and it is used by numismatists when weighing coins retrieved from hoards. Like the gram weight, which is more often used for this purpose, it is not significant for present purposes. [There are 7000 grains in a pound; 437 1/2 grains in an ounce and 27 11/32 grains in a dram.]

111

The Reign of Æthelred II stringent central control. The royal treasury probably benefited from the sale of dies to moneyers at a cost which included an element of profit or ‘taxation’. Generally, the number of moneyers and the volume of coins in circulation appear to have increased in this period. The king seems to have had no difficulty in appointing moneyers and we may reasonably suppose that they were increasingly prosperous.601 How were they rewarded? The answer may now seem obvious: looking at fiscal theory it may be postulated that every pound of silver was turned into 256 pennies of which the moneyer was allowed to keep one ora of 16 pennies to cover his taxes, other costs and profit. A merchant or noble would receive only 240 pennies for his pound of silver, but this was acceptable because the king and the nobility would take 240 pennies as commutation of a liability to pay a pound of silver, ‘according to the weight for which my money is accepted’ as stated in Æthelred’s law quoted above. The fiscal theory that there were 256 pennies in a pound of silver is not evidenced in our sources. Its existence is apparent through a logical analysis of the information available and it is the rational explanation for fiscal practice. It explains how the moneyers were rewarded, for instance. It is also important because King Edgar’s reform of the currency was not a ‘root and branch’ operation; he reinforced and enhanced a fiscal system which already existed and was already ancient when it was referred to in the laws of King Æthelstan early in the tenth century. Because it was accepted that there were only 15 oras, 240 pennies, in a pound of silver, it was also accepted that 240 pennies did not weigh a pound. In other words, the concept of a fiduciary element in the coinage was already firmly entrenched in the official and public psyche. The king and his ministers would accept 240 pennies from official mints as a ‘pound’ when subjects met their legal commitments. Thus, in England,602 people took it on trust that a notional pound of silver coins had the same value as a pound weight of silver.603 There was no need for a uniform

weight for each silver penny and the king could order the weight to be manipulated to suit fiscal requirements – although it was in his interests to maintain the quality of the coinage. The Table in Illustration 12, above, shows that English coins did not have a uniform weight and this is evidence of a further fiduciary element in the coinage. This aspect will be considered later in this appendix. First, however, it is necessary to mention ‘commutation’ and ‘taxation’ and to explain why the quality of the coinage was so important to Anglo-Saxon monarchs. Commutation and taxation By ‘commutation’ is meant the practice of king and nobility accepting, or even demanding, that their food-rents, as well as the profits of judicial fines, should be paid in silver pennies rather than goods. The king’s estates and those of his nobility were increasingly extended beyond Wessex into other regions of England as the tenth century progressed and it became more and more important that the king should be able to commute a food-rent into coins. Thus, the laws state the value of certain items; values presumably derived from commutations since market values must have been variable.604 In these circumstances it was in the interests of the king and the nobility to ensure that there was a uniform coinage throughout the country and that there were stringent regulations to protect its value. By ‘taxation’

pennies [12 x ‘X’] in half a ‘pound’ and when doubled there are [12 x ‘XX’ =] 240 pennies = one pound. This notation seems to have run alongside the 15 x 16 = 240 pennies = one pound notation, because it was easier to handle and the 15 x 16 notation seemed to lack a logical basis. See Nightingale, ‘The Ora, the Mark, and the Mancus’ in Numismatic Chronicle Vol. CXLIV (1984), p. 236 and pp. 245-6. The development of ‘troy weight’' is interesting in this context. There are 24 grains [troy] in one pennyweight, 20 pennyweights in one ounce and 12 ounces [240 pennyweights] in one pound. [4 grains, troy, make one carat] Thus we have 20 pennyweights x 12 ounces in one pound. Some commentators have argued that the pound troy, at c. 367 grams was the Anglo-Saxon pound weight for commercial and financial purposes: Nightingale ibid, p. 245. However, the known weight of Anglo-Saxon coins during the reign of King Æthelred II coupled with the minimum number of pennies in a pound must surely preclude a pound weighing so little.

illi [monetarii] habeant suboperarios suos in suo crimine, quod purum faciant et recti ponderis, per eandam witam quam praediximus. ‘And they [moneyers] shall be responsible for the production by their employees of pure money of the proper weight, under pain of incurring the same fine as we have fixed above.’ IV Æthelred, 9.1, Robertson Laws, pp. 76-7. See also M. O'Hara ‘An iron reverse die of the reign of Cnut’ in Rumble, Cnut pp. 258-60 for various interpretations of the ‘names’ on the coins. 601 See O’Hara M. ‘An iron reverse die of the reign of Cnut’ in The Reign of Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway, ed. A. R. Rumble, London: Leicester University Press, 1994, pp. 231-82, at p. 258, note 87, quoting many authorities for the wealth of moneyers. Though I have noted a general increase in the number of moneyers, this was not the case early in Æthelred’s reign before the increase in taxation began to have an impact. There is evidence that he reduced the number of moneyers at some time before the end of the tenth century. The laws, IV Æthelred, c. 9 say ‘And moneyers shall be fewer in number than they have been in the past. In every principal town [there shall be] three, and in every other town [there shall be] one.’ Robertson Laws, pp. 76-7. 602 ‘In England’ but not necessarily elsewhere in Europe, where the same stringent control of the currency and the process of production did not exist. 603 Fortuitously the number 240 has a '0' as the final digit when it is written in Arabic notation. It should not be forgotten that the Anglo-Saxons did not have this notation; they used Latin notation and we must forget modern decimalization concepts if we are to understand them and their procedures. However, the number 10 [‘X’] is significant in Latin notation. The number 12 is the next significant number which is less than 16. There are 120

It may be observed, following Nightingale's reasoning, ibid, p. 237, that, if the Anglo-Saxon pound weighed approximately 440 grams as is argued below, then the weight ratio of silver to gold would have been 12:1, not 10:1 during King Æthelred's reign. 604 Whitelock, EHD (1955), number 37, pp. 387-91: ‘The ordinance of the bishops and reeves of the London district (VI Athelstan).’ Paragraph 3 refers to a penalty of ‘30 pence or one ox’. Paragraph 6 deals with compensations and equates a horse with ‘half a pound’, an ox ‘at a mancus; and a cow at 20 [pence] and a pig at 10 [pence]; and a sheep at a shilling.’ A mancus is taken to be the equivalent of 30 pence in this instance. Paragraph 8.5 also refers to a penalty of ‘30 pence or one ox’. The context indicates agreed legal values for these animals (animals which might have formed part of a food-rent). Such values are different from market values which would have been variable. Reference is made to a market value in the case of compensation for the loss of a horse, in paragraph 6. The reference to ‘half a pound’ and a ‘mancus’ is interesting. Æthelstan’s laws usually refer to fines and compensations in terms of pence and shillings. The mancus was in use throughout the period until Cnut’s manipulation of the currency appears to have upset the relationship between gold and silver: the mancus was then replaced by the mark. See Nightingale, ‘The Ora, the Mark, and the Mancus’ in Numismatic Chronicle Vol. CXLIV (1984), pp. 238-9.

112

Appendix 3: Fiscal Policy and the Manipulation of the Currency

13: EXPENDITURE CAUSING HIGH NATIONAL TAXATION FROM 991 YEAR 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 onwards

DANEGELD

SHIP LEVY

ARMY LEVY

HEREGELD

10,000

ASC CDE " "

** 16,000 22,000 ** ** ** **

REFERENCE

** ** **

**

24,000

Æth.II inferred " ASC CDE " ASC ACDE ASC CDE "

** **

" " " " "

36,000 ** ** ** 48,000 ** 21.000 ** ** 72,000 ** **

" inferred ASC CDE " " " inferred "

** = Costs not specified N.b. The cost of local levies and truces has been ignored, including specific payments from Kent and London made to viking forces and recorded in the ASC.

is meant the resources gathered by the king and nobility for national purposes. Taxation was often paid in kind: men, equipment and supplies. In the days of Edward the Elder the great concern of the West Saxon nation was to protect its homeland and extend its authority into eastern and northern England.605 During Edward the Elder’s wars of conquest, taxation must have been relatively high.606 During most of the peaceful reign of King Edgar, by way of contrast, taxation must have been relatively low.607

However, there may have been a change towards the end of his reign because of the cost of Edgar’s coronation celebrations at Bath and the cost of the naval force which accompanied him to Chester immediately after his coronation.608 The king’s requirements in relation to these matters probably explain the reform of the coinage in c. 973. However, in the first decade of King Æthelred II's reign, taxation was probably relatively low.609 From the year 991 onwards, the level of taxation in England increased considerably and remained at a relatively high level throughout the remainder of King Æthelred's reign and the early years of King Cnut's reign. Increasingly, the king’s requirement was for payment in coin to make

605

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle ABCD s.aa. 906 to 923 and the Mercian Register in Whitelock, EHD (1955) pp. 192-9. 606 High taxation is deduced as a natural consequence of the almost constant warfare related in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the Mercian Register. The rewards of successful warfare, through the acquisition of territory and booty, were great and no doubt made the level of taxation acceptable. In this context ‘taxation’ refers to the wider costs of meeting ‘national’ requirements, not just to ‘narrower’ money payments. 607 Deduced from the evident peace in England which in turn is deduced from the lack of incident in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and King Edgar’s by-name: ‘the Peaceable’.

608

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle ABCDE s.aa. 972-4. There was a period of troubles between the death of Edgar and the accession of King Æthelred but, when the fiscal problems occasioned during this period were resolved, there is no evidence of activities which would have given rise to an increase in national taxation. 609

113

The Reign of Æthelred II payments of Danegeld and heregeld and to meet other costs associated with invasions by Scandinavian forces. Safeguarding the value of the coinage through central control of production was essential in such circumstances. Evidence of expenditure which would have given rise to high taxation is set out in Illustration 13.610

Maintaining the intrinsic value of the coinage It has often been noted, in observations of the coinage in hoards, that there were periodic re-issues of the English silver coinage.613 If Æthelred ordered moneyers to increase the number of coins made from a given weight of silver, he could rely upon them to carry out the order because it benefited the moneyers and their customers. However, they would be less enthusiastic about an order to reduce the number of coins made from a given weight of silver. To ensure compliance, therefore, Æthelred had to withdraw existing dies and replace them with dies which had features distinguishing them clearly from the previous issue.

Stimulating the production of silver pennies As a result of increased taxation during King Æthelred’s reign there was a need to stimulate the production of coins to increase the number in circulation. The king had a mechanism for controlling the volume of coinage going into circulation and this brings us to an explanation for the varying weight of coins which is a feature of the reign of King Æthelred II. Governments then, as now, were likely to try to coerce people to undertake various actions for the good of the community. But coercion is rarely effective over a long period of time such as the period of history presently under consideration. It is necessary, therefore, to identify a mechanism which would be persuasive and which would encourage merchants and nobles to bring silver to the moneyers to be turned into pennies. A fiduciary element in the English coinage has already been noted in that the king would accept 240 pennies as the equivalent of a pound weight of silver. That concept was easily taken a step further. When the king needed to raise taxes, he agreed with his Witan how many pounds should be collected.611 But this was not enough by itself; he needed to stimulate coin production so that the English people could pay the taxes. This was achieved by ordering moneyers to make more than 256 pennies from every pound of silver. For illustration purposes, assume that the king ordered 256 plus 32, that is 288, coins to be made from a pound of silver.612 From the 288 coins, the moneyer kept back 16 pennies as his agreed allowance. That left 272 pennies to be given to the provider of the silver. If this person owed the king a pound he could commute his liability by a payment of 240 pennies and he was left with 32 pennies which we might term ‘profit’ from the transaction. On this basis it was worth turning silver artefacts into coins and it was worth importing silver into the country. Once satisfied, the king could reduce the flow of coinage going into circulation by ordering moneyers to make fewer coins from each pound of silver. The weight variations which we see in Æthelred’s coinage, after due allowance has been made for weight variations necessitated by the process of manufacture, speak clearly of central manipulation of the coinage and a remarkable degree of control over the process of production.

Velocity of circulation At this point it becomes necessary to introduce the term ‘velocity of circulation’. It is remarkable how rapidly money circulates in a modern economy. Money also circulated rapidly in Æthelred's day, though perhaps not as rapidly as today. Consider a Scandinavian army encamped on the Isle of Wight awaiting a payment of a Danegeld or a heregeld which King Æthelred had agreed to pay. The Danegeld was a payment for a truce so that a Scandinavian army would cease harrying. It did not necessarily mean that it would depart, although individual ships’ companies might well decide that they would return to Scandinavia with their share of the payment. Scandinavian armies remained in England for long periods; sometimes receiving heregeld as a mercenary force to be deployed by the king elsewhere but always returning to an English base.614 Such an army would undoubtedly acquire goods on credit against receipt of the Danegeld or heregeld. Payments would be received over a period of several weeks and much of the coinage would be put into circulation. Merchants and others would transfer the coins, many of which would return to the king in payment of taxes ordered to meet the payment of Danegeld or heregeld. In other words the same silver might be used by the king more than once in payment of one Danegeld or one heregeld. Velocity of circulation is a factor which historians must take into account when assessing the probability of the king being able to make some of the payments specified in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.615 613 Jonsson, ‘Cnut’s coinage’ in Rumble, Cnut, pp. 205-6. See I. Stewart, ‘Coinage and Recoinage after Edgar’s Reform’ in Jonsson, Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon Coinage for a detailed analysis of the problems associated with this subject. 614 I Howard, Swain Forkbeard’s Invasions and the Danish Conquest of England, 991-1017, pp. 14-22. 615 Velocity of monetary circulation is a factor sometimes discussed by numismatists. For instance, Metcalf mentions it in his paper ‘Can we believe the very large figure of £72,000 for the Geld levied by Cnut in 1018’ in Jonsson, Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon Coinage, p. 170, though he does not use it as a factor explaining the relative ease with which a geld payment might be made, preferring to compare the geld with the static figure of total coins in the Quatrefoil issue. This approach is traditional but misleading and I can only conclude that it is based upon a misunderstanding that a geld was paid on a specific occasion and purchased the immediate departure of a Scandinavian army. In my book, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions and the Danish Conquest of England 991-1017, it is explained that geld was paid for a truce and that Scandinavian armies did not disperse. It is entirely reasonable in such circumstances to suppose that a geld was paid over a period of several weeks and it follows that we should take velocity of circulation into account as a significant feature of the payment procedure.

610

The information in this Illustration is taken from I. Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions and the Danish Conquest of England, 991-1017: Woodbridge, 2003, p.20. 611 King Æthelred is often described as paying Danegeld or taking action against Vikings with the advice of his Witan or councillors: Anglo-Saxon Chronicle CDE, s.aa. 992, 994, 999, 1002, 1006, 1010, 1011, 1012. 612 See Illustration 15, below. There are examples of a premium of 32 pence: e.g. Edg. C2 and Æ II B1. It is chosen as an example because it falls between the extremes of the premiums arising in King Æthelred’s reign.

114

Appendix 3: Fiscal Policy and the Manipulation of the Currency Incidentally, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates only part of the cost of dealing with the invasions in that it makes no attempt to evaluate the sums of money raised for the provision of armies and fleets and it almost ignores the payment of heregeld to mercenary Scandinavian armies employed by King Æthelred in the period subsequent to 991.616

The gross profit in every 320 pence is the [64-48 =] 16 additional pence. The marginal return is the additional pence less the cost of producing the new coins; that is [16 - 11.5 =] 4.5 pence. There is a potential maximum profit available from 24,000 pounds of [24,000 x 4.5 =] 108,000 pence or [108,000 / 240 =] 450 pounds.

New coins for old

However, the velocity of circulation factor reduces the potential profit by diluting the average weight of coins ‘in circulation’ to an unviable amount. Allowing for this, a realistic potential profit might be, say, 250 pounds.

Knowing that the English coinage passed rapidly and regularly through the hands of the king, we may now deduce the mechanism for re-issuing the coinage. Again no coercion was required. When the king ordered the coinage to be manipulated so that more pennies were made from a pound of silver than before - and this was done on an increasing scale as the reign progressed617 - any holder of existing coins would find that the average weight of, say, 100 old coins was slightly more than the weight of 100 new coins. The discrepancy was such that it was not worthwhile asking a moneyer to make an exchange: the moneyer would undoubtedly refuse. However, there was in every county one central body that held tens of thousands of coins for a short period. This was the official representing the king, and it was well worthwhile negotiating an exchange of old coins for new: the difference which might amount to many hundreds of pennies could then be divided between the moneyer and the king so that both benefited.618 Obviously, the moneyer would not get his usual return on coin production, but it represented an acceptable marginal profit nevertheless.619 This feature, incidentally, probably explains why there are a few moneyers in the country who appear to have been excessively busy.

However, even, say, 250 pounds would have been a very sizable sum for division between the king and the mints. [And the king would benefit indirectly by stimulating increased use of dies which in turn hastened the time when new dies would be required and a further tax payment made.] Marginal profit on the above transaction Assume that a profit of, say, 250 pounds could be made on a re-coinage arising from a Danegeld payment of 24,000 pounds. Assume that the annual profits of the mints were [70 mints x 4 pounds =] 280 pounds; see below: ‘The profit/taxation element in the issue of dies’ for the average profit per mint. Assume that the mints would be delighted to increase their profit levels during a relatively short period and take [70 x 2 =] 140 pounds of the available profit. This would represent a very acceptable marginal return on their work. The king would benefit most of all, of course, since he would get (250 - 140 =) 110 pounds. However, he was in a position to dictate terms.

14. Calculations illustrating profit and marginal profit

In the circumstances, the payment of a Danegeld probably benefited the king’s treasury and the English economy in those areas of the country where the Scandinavian army spent money. In a very real sense, these payments represented a re-distribution of wealth and a stimulus to the economy rather than the out and out drain on English wealth which some historians have supposed.

Profit available from melting down a large number of old coins Assume a Danegeld of 24,000 pounds, as in the year 1002. Assume that the premium was 64 pence as in Long Cross (Table II Æ II D) and that the average premium for coins in circulation was 48 pence. Thus, [256 + 48 =] 304 coins could be melted down and made into [256 + 64 =] 320 coins; that is 16 additional coins.

It is interesting to put these figures in context. In 1012, a Danegeld of 48,000 pounds paid to an army of approximately 5000 men represented an average payment of about 10 pounds to each warrior. A large number would receive much less than 10 pounds, whilst the higher ranking ship-owners and war leaders would get paid much more. If the king’s treasury benefited from this exercise to the tune of, say, 110 pounds, [and on the 48,000 pounds Danegeld in 1012, it might have been more] it is interesting to speculate whether the king benefited more or less than the army leader, Thorkell.

Assume that tax on dies is 240 pence per 10,000 coins and that other production costs are 120 pence per 10,000 coins. It costs the moneyer ([240 + 120 =] 360 pence to make 10,000 coins. It costs [360 x 320 / 10,000 =] 11.5 pence to make 320 new coins.

616 See Illustration 13, above. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle does refer to one payment which, in context, is heregeld paid by King Æthelred after his restoration in 1014. 617 See Illustration 15, below. 618 See Illustration 14: ‘Profit available from melting down a large number of old coins’. 619 See Illustration 14: ‘Marginal profit on the above transaction’.

115

The Reign of Æthelred II

15. ‘premium’ in issues of coins PREMIUM (number of coins in excess of 256 made from one pound of silver): 8 16 32 48 64 80 88 → → → → 152 160 [premium divided by 16 = ½ 1 2 3 4 5 5½ 9½ 10

168 10½

COINS (type & number) [Year: c. 973]* Edg. C2: 219 coins Em A: 209 coins Æ II A1: 80 coins " B1: 1021 coins " B2: 650 coins

● ● ● ● ●

[Year: c. 991]* " " " " " " "

B3: 87 coins ● C: [2 issues; 4930 coins] ● A2: [27 coins: inadequate sample] D: [2 issues; 5906 coins] ● E: 1978 G: [10 coins: inadequate sample] A3: [2 issues; 4251 coins] ●

●

● ●

●

[Year: c. 1017]* Cn E: 5590 coins Cn G: 5474 coins Cn H: 3325 coins

● ● ●

The different issues of coins are identified as follows: Edgar (Edg) C2 = Reform Small Cross; Edward the Martyr (Em) A = Normal Small Cross; Æthelred (Æ II) A1 = First Small Cross; B1 = First Hand; B2 = Second Hand; B3 = Benediction Hand; C = Crux; A2 = Intermediate Small Cross; D = Long Cross; E = Helmet; G = Agnus Dei; A3 = Last Small Cross; Cnut (Cn) E = Quatrefoil; G = Pointed Helmet; H = Short Cross. The calculations of each of the above premiums are shown in Illustration 16.

It also explains why all moneyers were similarly ‘excessively’ busy in the early period of Cnut’s reign; because Cnut’s major devaluation of the English coinage made it worth while exchanging a comparatively few old coins for new ones as there was sufficient surplus to satisfy the moneyers and leave a margin of profit for those bringing coins to them to exchange.620

p.169 says, ‘Output increased dramatically at the medium and small mints, during the Quatrefoil type only, and then reverted to normal in the following types, whereas at the major mints, no sudden upturn occurred. This pattern is very unusual. There is nothing quite like it in the late AngloSaxon period, from Edgar’s reform onwards.’ See also Jonsson, ‘Cnut’s Coinage’ in Rumble, Cnut, pp. 219-22.

620

Metcalf ‘Can we believe the very large figure of £72,000 for the Geld levied by Cnut in 1018?’ in Jonsson, Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon Coinage,

116

Appendix 3: Fiscal Policy and the Manipulation of the Currency Cnut’s reign, the premium varies from 8 pennies to (5 x 16 or) 80 pennies: a considerable range. At a premium of 80 pence per pound it seems certain that large amounts of silver would be drawn into the country.

The Anglo-Saxon silver pound weight In this appendix it is suggested that the silver pound621 weighed c. 440 g. throughout the reigns of King Æthelred and King Cnut.622 The weight of c. 440 g. is based upon there being [240 + 16 =] 256 pence in a pound plus a premium to encourage people to provide silver for making into coins. Put another way, enough coins were produced from each pound of silver to provide 240 pennies plus 16 pennies for the moneyer plus a variable number of pennies sufficient to encourage merchants and nobles to bring silver to be made into coins. On the basis of known coins, and the calculations of premium in Illustration 16, below, the pound weight at 440 g. is accurate to within +/– 1%.

There is evidence of the premium increasing beyond 80 pence at the end of Æthelred's reign, or, more likely, during the wars which preceded Cnut's succession. There was civil war in England following the death of King Æthelred. The protagonists were Æthelred’s son, Edmund Ironside, and King Cnut. Although there is evidence that Cnut issued coins immediately after his father's death, they were for use in Denmark. Neither Cnut nor Edmund appear to have issued coins in England in their own name until after the war was concluded by Edmund’s death some seven months after that of King Æthelred, after which Cnut became the undisputed king of England. This was probably because coins of King Æthelred continued to be acceptable to all parties whereas the coins of a factional leader who might soon be defeated were not. However, it is likely that both parties manipulated the coinage, increasing the premium to encourage the production of more coins. Much money was needed by both factions to support their war effort.

An examination of the pattern established by the known issues of coins establishes that coinage was issued with a premium as low as 8 pence; that is a mean weight of [440 / (256 + 8) =] 1.67 g. This is a very low premium which could only have appertained when there was a benign balance between the number of coins needed for fiscal purposes and the silver available for coin production. A nil premium – a mean weight of [440 / 256 =] 1.72 g – was a possible scenario, though a mean coin weight of this magnitude is more likely to indicate a suspect sample: e.g. the number of coins in the sample is too small to be representative.

Devaluation of the coinage Cnut commenced his reign with a significant devaluation of the English currency. He did this by increasing the premium to approximately (10 x 16 =) 160 pence. It should be observed that a continuing premium at this level is indicative of:

The mean weight is used for the purposes of the calculation because of the existence of many ‘makeweight’ coins in any sample of reasonable size. The manner of making coins, with a given number to a pound, ensured that moneyers would use ‘heavy’ and ‘light’ coins which were made specifically for the purpose of balancing a required number of coins against a pound weight. This feature of ‘make-weight’ coins must influence the range of every ‘substantive’ coin issue.623

• •

Fiscal manipulation It is interesting to observe the process of fiscal manipulation during the reign of King Æthelred and the early years of King Cnut's reign. Illustration 15 shows how the king could order his moneyers to vary the number of coins made from a pound of silver.

•

A shortage of silver in the western economy which perhaps took effect from as early as 1015, or Manipulation of the currency for the king’s benefit with moneyers being charged substantially more for dies whilst being allowed to take more than 16 pence per pound so they could ‘afford’ this increased taxation, or A combination of both causes.

The combination of causes is the most likely explanation. The statistical base for numismatic analysis

Illustration 15 shows the premium of pennies in excess of 256 on figures derived from the mean weights of the coins in the Table of coins in Illustration 12. Before

Although thousands of coins have survived from the period discussed in this paper, a relatively small proportion has been found in the British Isles. Jonsson says, of Cnut’s coinage, that, ‘The total number of surviving coins from English mints is probably about 20,000 of which only some 1,300 have been found in England and an additional c.700 in other parts of the British Isles.’ He provides an analysis of such coins and where they were found: British Isles 2,000; Denmark 2,300; Norway 1,200; Sweden 9,500; Finland 300; West Slav region 2,200; Estonia 750; Russia 1,100; Total 19,350.624

621 ‘Silver pound’ because it is possible that there were different weight standards for other commodities. 622 Nightingale, ‘The Ora, the Mark, and the Mancus’ in Numismatic Chronicle Vol. CXLIV (1984), p. 246 claims that King Æthelred's pound and that of Cnut were different and both weighed less than the modern pound. 623 Petersson’s comments about the ability of moneyers to manufacture individual coins to a very accurate weight is interesting. However, it is likely that his analysis does no more than demonstrate that a moneyer could roll a sheet of silver to a consistent thickness and from each such sheet the same manufacturing instruments and dies would create coins of identical or nearly identical weight. See H. B. A. Petersson, AngloSaxon Currency: King Edgar’s Reform to the Norman Conquest: Lund, 1969, pp. 142-6 and p. 254, Table 49.

624

117

Jonsson, ‘Cnut’s Coinage’ in Rumble, Cnut, pp. 206-7 and Table 11.3.

The Reign of Æthelred II In the context of such figures, it is interesting to consider the incidence of hoards in England and in Scandinavia. It is probable that in most of England coins were used regularly in trade and hoards were not normally ‘lost’ to be rediscovered centuries later. In Scandinavia, English coins represented a store of value which was greater than the intrinsic value of the silver. Coins were stored until such time as they could be used in trade - directly, or indirectly by barter with a merchant. There was a greater propensity to hoard coins. In this context a hoard is the equivalent of a ‘bank deposit’ or a ‘pension fund’ to be drawn upon from time to time. There were, of course, many reasons why coin hoards remained to be found many centuries later, but a factor common to most must be that an owner kept his secret so well that he died without passing on sufficient information concerning the whereabouts of his hoard.

fact, contemplate a consistently high tax scenario and place more emphasis on ‘velocity of circulation’ in our analyses of monetary policy and issues of coins. A concentration on the weight of individual coins or issues of coins may be confusing. The Anglo-Saxons could, and probably did, base fiscal policy on the number of coins in a pound weight. From this base, it may be deduced that the king ordered moneyers to make coins, varying the number in a pound weight to suit political and economic circumstances. It is also possible to deduce the existence of a mechanism which encouraged frequent recoinage of the currency without the need for the coercion which some commentators have thought necessary; and it is possible to deduce a mechanism for raising taxes from moneyers and rewarding them for their work; a mechanism which may date back to the days of the Mercian hegemony.626

Despite the existence of thousands of coins, a note of caution is required. The coin analyses used for the purposes of this paper, and numismatic discussion elsewhere, may represent no more than 0.01% of the coins issued during the reign of King Æthelred II and 0.02% of the coins issued during the reign of King Cnut.625 This is because they were so frequently melted down and the silver used again, often for new coinage.

It seems probable that the Anglo-Saxon pound weighed less than the modern pound weight although perhaps more than has sometimes been suggested. The devaluation engineered early in the reign of King Cnut appears to mark a further advance in fiscal manipulation which was hugely profitable to the king.

Conclusions Although the approach to fiscal matters taken in this paper may differ a little, many of its observations complement findings of previous work in this field.

The achievements of numismatists over recent years have been impressive. Careful analysis coupled with the application of statistical science has gleaned a wealth of knowledge from a database of coins which, perhaps, represents no more than 0.01% of the coins issued during the reign of King Æthelred II and 0.02% of the coins issued during the reign of King Cnut. Given the nature of the coin samples, which cannot be truly representative, there must be reservations about individual observations. However, the pattern of the observations is persuasive. Some numismatists may have been misled by historical analyses of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle into attempting to match coin issues with the payments of Danegeld. The anomalies encountered in attempting this exercise are removed if it is accepted that taxation in England from the year 991 was at a high level practically every year for the remainder of Æthelred's long reign. We should, in 625

Æthelred:

Coins: -

19,368 [addition of coins in Illustration 12]

Estimated number of coins struck per Jonsson, ‘Cnut’s coinage’, p. 218, Table 11.8: [20 + 12 + 40 + 18 + 12 + 30 =]: - 132 million Calculation: 19,368 / 132,000,000 x 100 = 0.01% Cnut: Coins: -

14,389 [addition of coins in Illustration 12]

Estimated number of coins struck per Jonsson, ‘Cnut’s coinage’, p. 218, Table 11.8: [47 + 22 + 14 =] 83 million 626 Nightingale, ‘The Ora, the Mark, and the Mancus’ in Numismatic Chronicle Vol. CXLIV (1984), p. 235.

Calculation: 14,389 / 83,000,000 x 100 = 0.02%

118

Appendix 3: Fiscal Policy and the Manipulation of the Currency Æ II E Helmet sample 1978 coins; mean is 1.37 g.; [440 / 1.37 =] 321; premium is [321 - 256 =] 65; say, 64 [or 4 x 16] This looks reasonable, but there are features suggesting that this sample is more complex than most.

16. Calculations of premiums used in Illustration 15 The calculations of ‘premium’ are explained below. It should be observed that, in practice, the king’s government may have manipulated the premiums more often than indicated here. Manipulation is disguised by the existence of ‘make-weight’ coins as well as ‘forgeries’. The premiums noted below may be taken as the minimum number which were applied and are sufficient to demonstrate how the system worked.

Æ II G Agnus Dei sample 10 coins; mean is 1.76 g.; impossible to use this small sample realistically. Æ II A3 Last Small Cross sample 4251 coins; [mean is 1.33 but there appears to be at least two issues] mean is [mode less, say 0.04, 1.72 - 0.04 =] 1.68 g.; [440 / 1.68 =] 262; premium is [262 - 256 =] 6; say, 8 [or ½ x 16] also: mean is [mode less, say 0.04, 1.32 - 0.04 =] 1.28 g.; [440 / 1.28 =] 343; premium is [343 - 256 =] 87; say, 88 [or 5½ x 16] The coin issues are difficult to analyze. I suspect that there are three rather than two and that 5½ x 16 is a composite figure.

Edg. C2 Reform Small Cross sample 219 coins; mean is 1.53 g.; [440 / 1.53 =] 287; premium is [287 - 256 =] 31; say, 32 [or 2 x 16] Em A Normal Small Cross sample 209 coins; mean is 1.38 g.; [440 / 1.38 =] 319; premium is [319 - 256 =] 63; say, 64 [or 4 x 16] Æ II A1 First Small Cross sample 80 coins; mean is 1.32 g.; [440 / 1.32 =] 333; premium is [333 - 256 =] 77; say, 80 [or 5 x 16]

Cn E Quatrefoil sample 5590 coins; mean is 1.06 g.; [440 / 1.06 =] 415; premium is [415 - 256 =] 159; say, 160 [or 10 x 16]

Æ II B1 First Hand sample 1021 coins; mean is 1.51 g.; [440 / 1.51 =] 291; premium is [291 - 256 =] 35; say, 32 [or 2 x 16]

Cn G Pointed Helmet sample 5474 coins; mean is 1.03 g.; [440 / 1.03 =] 427; premium is [427 - 256 =] 171; say, 168 [or 10½ x 16]

Æ II B2 Second Hand sample 650 coins; mean is 1.32 g.; [440 / 1.32 =] 333; premium is [333 - 256 =] 77; say, 80 [or 5 x 16]

Cn H Short Cross sample 3325 coins; mean is 1.08 g.; [440 / 1.08 =] 407; premium is [407 - 256 =] 151; say, 152 [or 9½ x 16]

Æ II B3 Benediction Hand sample 87 coins; mean is 1.60 g.; [440 / 1.60 =] 275; premium is [275 - 256 =] 19; say, 16 [or 1 x 16]

Since none of the samples can be said to be truly representative, the above results are suspect and may change as new hoards are discovered. However, the pattern provides an over-view of fiscal policy and there is likely to be a close correlation between the above results and any adjustments arising from an improvement in the sample. [I have made calculations based upon Jonsson’s Table. Obviously, given the manner in which I have derived my data, Petersson’s results are much to be preferred by anybody who wants to study this subject in greater depth. The modes in the above analysis vary slightly from Petersson, Coins and weights, Tables II and III on pp. 3489, for instance.]

Æ II C Crux sample 4930 coins; [mean is 1.48 but there appears to be at least two issues] mean is [mode less, say 0.04, 1.67 - 0.04 =] 1.63 g.; [440 / 1.63 =] 270; premium is [270 - 256 =] 14; say, 16 [or 1 x 16] also: mean is [mode less, say 0.04, 1.42 - 0.04 =] 1.38 g.; [440 / 1.38 =] 319; premium is [319 - 256 =] 63; say, 64 [or 4 x 16] Æ II A2 Intermediate Small Cross sample 27 coins; mean is 1.66 g.; [440 / 1.66 =] 265; premium is [265 - 256 =] 9; say, 8 [or ½ x 16] This sample is far too small to use. Æ II D Long Cross sample 5906 coins; [mean is 1.57 but there appears to be at least two issues] mean is [mode less, say 0.04, 1.72 - 0.04 =] 1.68 g.; [440 / 1.68 =] 262; premium is [262 - 256 =] 6; say, 8 [or ½ x 16] also: mean is [mode less, say 0.04, 1.42 - 0.04 =] 1.38 g.; [440 / 1.38 =] 319; premium is [319 - 256 =] 63; say, 64 [or 4 x 16]

119

Bibliography Dumville D. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a collaborative edition, Volume 1, Facsimile of MS. F: The Domitian Bilingual, Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1995

Primary Sources Manuscript London, BL, Cotton Tiberius B iv: Anglo-Saxon Chronicle MS D

Fairweather J. (trans.), Liber Eliensis: A History of the Isle of Ely from the Seventh Century to the Twelfth, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2005 Faulkes A. (trans.), Snorri Sturluson: Edda, London: J. M. Dent, 1987 (reissued 1995) Fell C. Edward, King and Martyr, Menston: Scolar Press, 1971 Flower R. and H. Smith (eds.), The Parker Chronicle and Laws (Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS.173): A Facsimile, Early English Text Society Original Series, No. 208, London: Oxford University Press, 1941 (for 1937) Forester T. (trans.), The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon, Comprising the History of England from the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Accession of Henry II. Also, the Acts of Stephen, King of England and Duke of Normandy, London: Henry G. Bohn, 1853

Printed Ashdown M. English and Norse Documents relating to the Reign of Ethelred the Unready, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930 Bately J. M. ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’, in The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991, pp. 37-50 Bately J. M. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a Collaborative Edition, vol. 3, MS A, a semi-diplomatic edition with introduction and indices, Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1986 Bauer A. and R. Rau (eds.), Widukindi Res Gestae Saxonicae: Quellen zur Geschichte der Sachsischen Kaiserzeit, in Ausgewählte Quellen zur Deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters, in Verbindung mit vielen Fachgenossen ed. R. Buchner und F-J. Schmale, Band 8, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977 Bethurum D. (ed.), The Homilies of Wulfstan, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957 Birch W. D. G. Cartularium Saxonicum: Collection of Charters related to Anglo-Saxon History, vol. III, A.D. 948-975, London: Charles J. Clark, 1893 Blake E. O. (ed.), Liber Eliensis, Camden 3rd Series, vol. XCII, London: Royal Historical Society, 1962 Blake N. F. (trans.), The Saga of the Jomsvikings, London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1962 Bosanquet G. (trans.), Eadmer’s History of Recent Events in England, London: The Cresset Press, 1964

Garmonsway G. N. (trans.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, 1972 (first published 1953) Gertz M. Cl. (ed.), Scriptores Minores Historiae Danicae Medii Ævi, vols I and II, København: J. Jørgensen & Co., 1917-20 Giles J. A. (trans.), Roger of Wendover’s Flowers of History, formerly ascribed to Matthew Paris, vol. I Part One, 447 to 1066 AD, Felinfach: Llanerch Publishers facsimile reprint, 1993 (first published London: Henry G. Bohn, 1849) Giles J. A. (trans.), William of Malmesbury’s Chronicle of the Kings of England from the earliest period to the reign of King Stephen, London: Henry G. Bohn, 1847 Greenway D. (ed. and trans.), Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum The History of the English People, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996

Campbell A. (ed.), Encomium Emmae Reginae, Camden 3rd Series, vol. LXXII, London: Royal Historical Society, 1949; reissued with a supplementary introduction by Simon Keynes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998 Campbell A. (ed.), The Chronicle of Æthelweard, London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1962 Classen E. and F. E. Harmer, An Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Manchester: 1926 Conner P. W. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a collaborative edition, Volume 10, The Abingdon Chronicle, A.D. 956-1066 (MS. C, with reference to B D E) a reconstructed edition with introduction and indices, Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1996 Cubbin G. P. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a collaborative edition, Volume 6: MS D, a semi-diplomatic edition with introduction and indices, Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1996

Harmer F. E. Anglo-Saxon Writs, Manchester, 1952, reissued Stamford: Paul Watkins, 1989 Hearn E. H. The Sagas of Olaf Tryggvason and of Harald the Tyrant (Harald Haardraade), London: Williams and Norgate, 1911 [English translation of Gustav Storm’s edition] Hollander L. M. (trans.), Heimskringla: History of the Kings of Norway by Snorri Sturluson, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1964 Irvine S, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a Collaborative Edition, Volume 7: MS E, a semi-diplomatic edition with introduction and indices, Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2004 Jónsson F. (ed.), Heimskringla, Nóregs Konunga Sogur af Snorri Sturluson, København: S. L. Møllers Bogtrykkeri, 1911

Darlington R. R. & P. McGurk (eds.), The Chronicle of John of Worcester, Volume II, The Annals from 450 to 1066, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995

Kemble J. M. Codex Diplomaticus Aevi Saxonici, vol. 3, London: English Historical Society, 1845

120

Robertson A. J. (ed. and trans.), The Laws of the Kings of England from Edmund to Henry I, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1925

Kemble J. M. Codex Diplomaticus Aevi Saxonici, vol. 6, London: English Historical Society, 1848 Keynes S. ‘King Æthelred’s treaty with the viking army (994)’, Appendix to ‘The Historical Context of the Battle of Maldon’ in The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991, pp. 103-7

Sawyer P. H. Anglo-Saxon Charters: An Annotated List and Bibliography, London: Royal Historical Society, 1968 [S. + number. The number following this letter is a reference to the charter number] Sawyer P. H. (ed.), Charters of Burton Abbey, AngloSaxon Charters, 2, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979 Scragg D. G. (ed.), The Battle of Maldon, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1981 Scragg Donald ‘The Battle of Maldon’, in The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991, pp. 15-36. This is preceded on pp. 3-14 by a reproduction of Oxford Bodleian, Rawlinson B203, ff. 7r12v, The Battle of Maldon. Stevenson J. (ed.), Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, vol. II, Rolls Series, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longman and Roberts, 1858 Stevenson J. (trans.), Simeon of Durham: A History of the Kings of England, Felinfach: Llanerch Enterprises facsimile reprint, 1987 (first published in 1858 in the Church Historians of England) Stevenson J. (trans.), William of Malmesbury: The Kings before the Norman Conquest, Felinfach: Llanerch Publishers, 1987 (facsimile reprint from The Church Historians of England) Stevenson J. (ed.), ‘The Chronicle of Florence of Worcester’ in The Church Historians of England, vol. II, Part I, London: Seeleys, 1853 Stubbs W. (ed.), Memorials of Saint Dunstan Archbishop of Canterbury, Rolls Series, London: Longman & Co., 1874 Stubbs W. (ed.), Select Charters and Other Illustrations of English Constitutional History from the Earliest Times to the Reign of Edward the First, 9th edition revised by H. W. C. Davis, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913 (1st edition, 1870) Stubbs W. (ed.), Willelmi Malmesbiriensis de Gestis Regum Anglorum, vol. I, Rolls Series, London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1887 Swanton M. (trans.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, London: J. M. Dent, 1996

Lappenberg J. M. (ed.), Mag. Adami Gesta Hammenburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum, MGH VII: Hannover, 1846, pp. 267-389 Lappenberg J. M. (ed.), Thietmari Chronicon, MGH III, 1889, pp. 723-871 Lattin H. P. (trans.), The Letters of Gerbert with his Papal Privileges as Sylvester II, New York: Columbia University Press, 1961 Liebermann F. Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, vol. I, Text und Übersetsung, Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1903 Liebermann F. Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, vol. III, Einleitung zu Jedem Stück; Erklärungen zu einzelnen Stellen, Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1916 Luard H. R. (ed.), Annales Monasterii de Wintonia (A. D. 519-1277), Annales Monasterii de Waverleia (A. D. 11291), Annales Monastici vol. II, Rolls Series, London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green, 1865 Lund N. (ed.), Two Voyagers at the Court of King Alfred: The Ventures of Ohthere and Wulfstan together with the Description of Northern Europe from the Old English Orosius, York: William Sessions Limited, 1984 Mellows W. T. (ed.), The Chronicle of Hugh Candidus, A Monk of Peterborough, London: Oxford University Press, 1949 Monsen E. (ed.), Heimskringla or the Lives of the Norse Kings by Snorre Sturlason, Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons Ltd., 1932 Pálsson H. and P. Edwards (trans.), Knytlinga Saga, The History of the Kings of Denmark, Odense: Odense University Press, 1986 Pertz G. H. (ed.), Annales Corbienses, MGH, III, Hannover: 1839, pp. 1-18 Pertz G. H. (ed.), Annales Hildesheimenses in MGH, III, Hannover: 1839, pp. 52-97 Pertz G. H. (ed.), Annales Quedlinburgenses, MGH, III, Hannover: 1839, pp. 52-78 Plummer C. (ed.), Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel with supplementary extracts from the others, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892-9

Taylor S. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition, Volume 4: MS B, Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1983 Thorpe B. (ed.), Florentii Wigorniensis Monachi, Chronicon ex Chronicis vol. I, London: English Historical Society, 1848 Thorpe B. (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle according to the Several Original Authorities, vol. I, Original Texts, Rolls Series, London: Longman, Green, Longman and Roberts, 1861 Trillmich W. (trans.) Thietmari Merseburgensis Episcopi: Chronicon, Berlin: Rütten & Loening; in Ausgewählte Quellen zur Deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters, in Verbindung mit vielen Fachgenossen, ed. R. Buchner, IX: Darmstadt, 1974 Tschan F. J. (trans.), Adam of Bremen: History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, New York: Columbia University Press, 1959 (An English translation of

Raine J. (ed.), The Historians of the Church of York and its Archbishops, vol. I, Rolls Series, London: Longman & Co., 1879 Raine J. (ed.), Vita Oswaldi Archiepiscopi Eboracensis, in The Historians of the Church of York and its Archbishops, vol. I, Rolls Series, ed. J. Raine, London: Longman & Co., 1879, pp. 399-475 Riley H. T. (trans.), Ingulf’s Chronicle of the Abbey of Croyland with the Continuations by Peter of Blois and Anonymous Writers, London: Henry G. Bohn, 1854 Robertson A. J. (ed. and trans.), Anglo-Saxon Charters, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939

121

Secondary Sources

Schmeidler’s 1917 edition. This book has been reissued, in 2002, with an introduction by T. Reuter)

Andersson T. M. ‘The Viking Policy of Ethelred the Unready’, in Anglo-Scandinavian England: Norse-English Relations in the Period before the Conquest, eds. J. D. Niles and M. Amodio, University Press of America: 1989

Waitz D. G. (ed.), Widukindi Res Gestae Saxonicae, MGH III, Hannover: 1839, pp. 408-67 Warner D. A. (trans.), Ottonian Germany: The Chronicon of Thietmar of Merseburg, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001 Whitelock D. (ed. and trans.), Anglo-Saxon Wills, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930 Whitelock D. (ed.), English Historical Documents, vol. I, c.500 - 1042, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1955 Whitelock D. (ed.), Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, University of Exeter: 1976 Williams Ab Ithel J. (ed.), Brut Y Tywysogion; or The Chronicle of the Princes, Rolls Series, London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1860

Banton N. ‘Monastic Reform and the Unification of TenthCentury England’, in Religion and National Identity, ed. S. Mews, Studies in Church History 18, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1982, pp. 71 - 85 Bately J. ‘Manuscript Layout and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 70, 1988, pp. 21-43 Bately J. M. ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’, in The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991, pp. 37-50 Bates D. Normandy before 1066, London and New York: Longman, 1982 Bennett M. ‘The Medieval Warhorse Reconsidered’, Medieval Knighthood V, Papers from the Sixth Strawberry Hill Conference, ed. S. Church and R. Harvey, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1995 Bennett M. ‘The Myth of the Military Supremacy of Knightly Cavalry’, Armies, Chivalry and Warfare in Medieval Britain and France: Proceedings of the 1995 Harlaxton Symposium, ed. M. Strickland, Stamford: Paul Watkins, 1998 Binns A. ‘ Ships and Shipbuilding’, in Medieval Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia, ed. P. Pulsiano , New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc., 1993, pp. 578-580 Blackburn M, and S. Lyon, ‘Regional die-production in Cnut’s Quatrefoil issue’, in Anglo-Saxon Monetary History: Essays in Memory of Michael Dolley, ed. M. Blackburn, Leicester, 1986, pp. 223-72 Briffa et al, ‘Fennoscandian summers from AD 500: temperature changes on short and long timescales’, Climate Dynamics: 1992, pp. 111-19 Briffa et al, ‘A 1,400-year tree-ring record of summer temperatures in Fennoscandia’, Nature, 346: 1990, pp. 434-9 Brooks ‘The Administrative Background to the Burghal Hidage’ in The Defence of Wessex: The Burghal Hidage and Anglo-Saxon Fortifications, ed. D. Hill and A. R. Rumble, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996, pp. 128-150 Brooks N. The Early History of the Church of Canterbury Christ Church from 597 to 1066, London: Leicester University Press, 1984 Brooks N. P. ‘Arms, Status and Warfare in Late-Saxon England’, in Ethelred the Unready: Papers from the Millenary Conference, ed. D. Hill, British Archaeological Reports, British series 59, 1978, pp. 81-104 Cheney C. R. (ed.), Handbook of Dates for Students of English History, London: Royal Historical Society, 1978. There is a new edition of this book, revised by M. Jones, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000 Chitty M. The Monks on Ynys Enlli, Part I, c.500 AD to 1252 AD, Aberdaron: 1992 Clapham J. H. ‘The Horsing of the Danes’, EHR XXV, 1910, pp. 287-93

122

Hill D and A. R. Rumble (eds), The Defence of Wessex: The Burghal Hidage and Anglo-Saxon Fortifications, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996 Hill D. ‘Gazetteer of Burghal Hidage sites’ in The Defence of Wessex: The Burghal Hidage and Anglo-Saxon Fortifications, ed. D. Hill and A. R. Rumble, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996, pp. 189-231 Hill D. ‘Trends in the Development of Towns during the reign of Ethelred II’, in Ethelred the Unready: Papers from the Millenary Conference, ed. D. Hill, British Archaeological Reports, British series 59, 1978, pp. 214-26 Hill D. and A. R. Rumble (eds.), The Defence of Wessex: The Burghal Hidage and Anglo-Saxon Fortifications, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996 Holmes G. (ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe, London: Guild Publishing, 1988 Howard I. Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions and the Danish Conquest of England 991 – 1017, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2003 Howard I. ‘Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions of England: a thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Ph.D. in the Faculty of Arts’: 2000 (copies lodged with the John Rylands University Library, Manchester) Howard I. Harthacnut, The Last Danish King of England, Stroud: The History Press, 2008 Howard I. ‘Harold II: A Throne-Worthy King’ in King Harold II and the Bayeux Tapestry, ed. Gale R. OwenCrocker, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2005 Howard I. ‘King Edward the Martyr: When, How and Why did he die? The problem and a Proposed Solution’, unpublished paper read to the Manchester Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies in April 2002

Clark C. ‘The Narrative Mode of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle before the Conquest’ in England Before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock, ed. P. Clemoes and K. Hughes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971, pp. 215-35 Clemoes P. and K. Hughes (eds.), England Before the Conquest: Studies in Primary Sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971 Darby H. C. Domesday England, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977 Davis R. H. C. A History of Medieval Europe from Constantine to Saint Louis, London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1957 Davis R. H. C. ‘The Saxon Empire’, in A History of Medieval Europe from Constantine to Saint Louis, London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1957 De Hamel C. Scribes and Illuminators, Medieval Craftsmen Series, London: British Museum Press, 1992 Dodgson J. McN. ‘The Site of the Battle of Maldon’, in The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991, pp. 170-9 Dolley M. ‘An Introduction to the Coinage of Æthelred II’, in Ethelred the Unready: Papers from the Millenary Conference, ed. D. Hill, British Archaeological Reports, British series 59, 1978, pp. 115-33 Dumville David N. English Caroline Script and Monastic History: Studies in Benedictinism, A.D. 950 – 1030, Woodbridge: 1993 Fletcher R. Bloodfeud: Murder and Revenge in AngloSaxon England, Allen Lane, 2003 Gillingham J. ‘ ‘‘The Most Precious Jewel in the English Crown’’: levels of Danegeld and Heregeld in the Early Eleventh Century’, EHR 104, 1989, pp. 373-84 Gillingham J. ‘Chronicles and Coins as Evidence for Levels of Tribute and Taxation in Late Tenth- and Early Eleventh-Century England’, EHR 105, 1990, pp. 939-50 Gordon E. V. ‘The Date of Æthelred’s Treaty with the Vikings: Olaf Tryggvason and the Battle of Maldon’ The Modern Language Review XXXII. 1937, pp. 24-32 Graham-Campbell J. (ed.), Cultural Atlas of the Viking World, London: 1994 Gransden A. Historical Writing in England c.550 to c.1307, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974 Griffith P. The Viking Art of War, London: Greenhill Books, 1995

John E. ‘War and Society in the Tenth Century: the Maldon Campaign’, TRHS 5th series 27, 1977, pp. 173-95 John E. ‘The Encomium Emmae Reginae: a Riddle and a Solution’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 63, 1980, pp. 58-94 Jonsson K. (ed.), Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon Coinage in memory of Bror Emil Hildebrand, Stockholm: Svenska Numismatiska Foreningen, 1990 Jonsson K. ‘The Coinage of Cnut’, in The Reign of Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway, ed. A. R. Rumble, London: Leicester University Press, pp. 193-230 Jost ‘Wulfstan und die angelsächsische Chronik’ (47 Anglia 105 ff.) 1923: quoted by Garmonsway, AngloSaxon Chronicle, p. xxxviii

Harrison K. The Framework of Anglo-Saxon History to A.D. 900, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976 Hart C. The Danelaw, London: The Hambledon Press, 1992 Higham N. J. The Death of Anglo-Saxon England, Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1997 Hill D. (ed.), An Atlas of Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981 Hill D. (ed.), Ethelred the Unready: Papers from the Millenary Conference, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 59: 1978

Kennedy A. ‘Byrhtnoth’s Obits and Twelfth-Century Accounts of the Battle of Maldon’, in The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991, pp. 59-78 Ker N. R. Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing AngloSaxon, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957 Keynes S. Anglo-Saxon History: A Select Bibliography, 10th and 11th editions, Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 1996 Keynes S. ‘A Tale of Two Kings: Alfred the Great and Æthelred the Unready’, TRHS 5th series 36, 1986, pp. 195217

123

Lund N. ‘Viking Age’ in Medieval Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia, ed. P. Pulsiano , New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc., 1993, pp. 693 Lund N. Lið, Leding og Landeværn: Hær og samfund i Danmark i ældre middelalder, Roskilde: Vikingeskibshallen, 1996

Keynes S. ‘Cnut’s Earls’, in The Reign of Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway, ed. A. R. Rumble, London: Leicester University Press, 1994, pp. 43-88 Keynes S. ‘Crime and Punishment in the Reign of King Æthelred the Unready’, in People and Places in Northern Europe 500 - 1600, ed. I. Wood and N. Lund, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1991, pp. 67-81 Keynes S. ‘The Declining Reputation of King Æthelred the Unready’, in Ethelred the Unready: Papers from the Millenary Conference, ed. D. Hill, British Archaeological Reports, British series 59, 1978, pp. 227-53 Keynes S. The Diplomas of King Æthelred ‘the Unready’ 978-1016: A Study in their Use as Historical Evidence, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd series, vol. 13, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980 Keynes S. ‘The Historical Context of the Battle of Maldon’, in The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991, pp. 81-113 Keynes S. ‘The Vikings in England’ in The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings, ed. P. Sawyer: Oxford, 1997, pp. 48-82

Macgowen K. Clonmacnois, Dublin: Kamac Publications, 1998 Margary I. D. Roman Roads in Britain, London: John Baker, 1973 Mayr-Harting H. The Coming of Christianity to AngloSaxon England, 3rd. edition, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991 Metcalf D. M. ‘The Ranking of the Boroughs: Numismatic Evidence from the Reign of Æthelred II’, in Ethelred the Unready: Papers from the Millenary Conference, ed. D. Hill, British Archaeological Reports, British series 59, 1978, pp. 160-90 Metcalf D. M. ‘Can we believe the very large figure of £72,000 for the geld levied by Cnut in 1018?’, in Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon Coinage in Memory of Bror Emil Hildebrand, ed. K. Jonsson, Stockholm: Svenska Numismatiska Föreningen, 1990, pp. 165-76 Mills A. D. A Dictionary of English Place-Names, Oxford: Oxford University Press, revised 1996

Lapidge M. ‘The Life of St Oswald’, in The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991, pp. 51-8 Lapidge, M. ‘The hermeneutic style in tenth-century Anglo-Latin literature’, ASE 4, 1975, pp 67-111 Latham R.E. Revised Medieval Word-List from British and Irish Sources, London: The British Academy, Oxford University Press, 1994 Lawson M. K. ‘ ‘‘Those Stories Look True’: Levels of Taxation in the Reigns of Æthelred II and Cnut’, EHR 104, 1989, pp. 385-406 Lawson M. K. ‘Danegeld and Heregeld Once More’, EHR 105, 1990, pp. 951-61 Lawson M. K. Cnut: The Danes in England in the Early Eleventh Century, London: Longman, 1993 Leyser K. J. Rule and Conflict in an Early Medieval Society: Ottonian Saxony, London: Edward Arnold, 1979 Locherbie-Cameron ‘The Men Named in the Poem’ in The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991, pp. 238-49 Lloyd E. J. A History of Wales from the Earliest Times to the Edwardian Conquest, London: 1912 Lot F. Les Derniers Carolingiens, Lothaire, Louis V, Charles de Lorraine (954-991): Paris, 1891 Lot F. Études sur le règne de Hugues Capet, Paris, 1903 Loyn H. The Vikings in Britain, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 1994 Lund N. ‘Cnut’s Danish Kingdom’ in The Reign of Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway, ed. A. R. Rumble, London: Leicester University Press, 1994, pp. 27-42 Lund N. ‘The Armies of Swein Forkbeard and Cnut: Leding or Lið?’, ASE 15, 1986, pp. 105-18 Lund N. ‘The Danish Perspective’, in The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991, pp. 114-42 Lund N. ‘Sven Haraldsson (Forkbeard)’ in Medieval Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia, ed. P. Pulsiano , New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc., 1993, pp. 627

Nightingale P. ‘The Ora, the Mark, and the Mancus: Weight-Standards and the Coinage in Eleventh-Century England, Part 2’ Numismatic Chronicle CXLIV, 1984, pp. 234-48 Niles J. D. and M. Amodio, Anglo-Scandinavian England: Norse-English Relations in the Period before the Conquest, University Press of America, 1989 O’Hara M. ‘An iron reverse die of the reign of Cnut’ in The Reign of Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway, ed. A. R. Rumble, London: Leicester University Press, 1994, pp. 231-82 Petersson H. B. A. Anglo-Saxon Currency: King Edgar’s Reform to the Norman Conquest, Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet, 1969 Petersson H. B. A. ‘Coins and weights. Late Anglo-Saxon pennies and mints c.973-1016’ in Studies in Late AngloSaxon Coinage in Memory of Bror Emil Hildebrand, ed. K. Jonsson, Stockholm: Svenska Numismatiska Föreningen, 1990, pp. 207-433 Poole R. ‘Skaldic Verse and Anglo-Saxon History: Some Aspects of the Period 1009-1016’, Speculum 62/2, 1987 pp. 265-98 Poole R. L. Studies in Chronology and History, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934 Pulsiano P. (ed.), Medieval Scandinavia: an Encyclopedia, New York & London: Garland Publishing Inc., 1993 Ridyard S. J. The Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England: A Study of West Saxon and East Anglian Cults, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988

124

Whitelock D. ‘The Dealings of the Kings of England with Northumbria in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries’, in The Anglo-Saxons, Studies in some Aspects of their History and Culture presented to Bruce Dickins, ed. P.Clemoes, London: Bowes & Bowes, 1959 Whitton D. ‘The Society of Northern Europe in the High Middle Ages: 900 – 1200’, in The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe, ed. G. Holmes, London: Guild Publishing, 1988, pp. 115-174 Williams A. ‘ ‘‘Cockles Amongst the Wheat’’: Danes and English in the Western Midlands in the First Half of the Eleventh Century’, Midland History 11, 1986, pp. 1-22 Wilson D. M. ‘Danish king and England in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries – economic implications’, Anglo-Norman Studies 3, 1981, pp. 188-96 Wood I. and N. Lund (eds.), People and Places in Northern Europe 500 – 1600: Essays in Honour of Peter Hayes Sawyer, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, Suffolk, 1991 Wormald P. ‘Æthelred the Lawmaker’, in Ethelred the Unready: Papers from the Millenary Conference, ed. D. Hill, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 59, 1978, pp. 47-80 Wormald ‘Æthelwold and his Continental Counterparts: Contact, Comparison, Contrast’ in Bishop Æthelwold: His Career and Influence, ed. B. Yorke, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1988, pp. 13-42 Wormald P. The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century, vol. I, Legislation and its Limits, Oxford: Blackwell, 2001

Ritchie R. L. The Normans in England before Edward the Confessor, An Inaugural Lecture delivered in the University College of the South West of England on 3rd May 1948, 1948 Rumble A. R. (ed.), The Reign of Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway, London: Leicester University Press, 1994 Sawyer P. ‘Cnut’s Scandinavian Empire’, in The Reign of Cnut, King of England, Denmark and Norway, ed. A. R. Rumble, London: Leicester University Press, pp. 10-22 Sawyer P. ‘Ethelred II, Olaf Tryggvason, and the Conversion of Norway’, in Anglo-Scandinavian England: Norse-English Relations in the Period before the Conquest, ed. J. D. Niles and M. Amodio, University Press of America, 1989 Sawyer P. Kings and Vikings: Scandinavia and Europe A.D.700-1100, New York: Barnes & Noble, 1994 Sawyer P. ‘Swein Forkbeard and the Historians’, in Church and Chronicle in the Middle Ages: essays presented to John Taylor, ed. I. Wood and G. A. Loud, London: The Hambledon Press, 1991 Sawyer P. (ed.), The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997 Sawyer P. ‘The Wealth of England in the Eleventh Century’, TRHS 5th Series 15, 1965, pp. 145-64 Scragg D. (ed.), The Battle of Maldon A.D. 991, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991 Scragg Donald (ed.), Edgar, King of the English, 959-975: New Interpretations, Publications of the Manchester Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies, Manchester: Boydell Press, 2008 Searle W. G. Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles: the Succession of the Bishops and the Pedigrees of the Kings and Nobles, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899 Southern R. W. The Making of the Middle Ages, London: Arrow Books, 1959 Stafford P. ‘The Reign of Æthelred II: a Study in the Limitations on Royal Policy and Action’, in Ethelred the Unready: Papers from the Millenary Conference, ed. D. Hill, British Archaeological Reports, British Series 59, 1978, pp. 15-46 Stafford P. Unification and Conquest: a Political and Social History of England in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries, London: Edward Arnold, 1989 Stenton F. M. Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971 Stewart I. ‘Coinage and Recoinage after Edgar’s Reform’ in Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon Coinage in Memory of Bror Emil Hildebrand, ed. K. Jonsson, Stockholm: Svenska Numismatiska Föreningen, 1990, pp. 455-85

Yorke B. ‘Æthelwold and the Politics of the Tenth Century’ in Bishop Æthelwold: His Career and Influence, ed. B. Yorke, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1988, pp. 63-88 Yorke B. (ed.) Bishop Æthelwold: His Career and Influence, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1988

Thacker A. ‘Æthelwold and Abingdon’, in Bishop Æthelwold: His Career and Influence, ed. B. Yorke, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1988, pp. 43 – 64 Thomson R. William of Malmesbury, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, Suffolk, 1987

125

Index Abbo, 23-4 Abingdon, 5, 12, 73, 86, 97, 100-1, 103, 105 Abraham Wheloc, see Wheloc Adam of Bremen, 76-7 Adelaide, wife of Otto the Great, 8 Adelard, 36 Æfic, king’s high-reeve, 41, 56 Ælfgar, son of Ealdorman Ælfric, 22-3, 30 Ælfgifu, wife of King Eadwig, 4, 82 Ælfgifu, wife of King Cnut, 47, 62, 65 Ælfheah, bishop of Winchester (d. s.a. 951), 86 Ælfheah, bishop of Winchester, 21, 29, 32, 36 archbishop of Canterbury, 36, 49, 51, 57, 73, 101 captured by Scandinavian here, 57-8 martyred, 58, 102-3 Ælfheah, ealdorman, 2, 85 Ælfhelm, ealdorman, 46-8, 60, 62 Ælfhere, ealdorman of Mercia, 3, 8, 10, 13, 17-18, 21-2, 73, 75, 105 Ælfhun, bishop of London, 58, 61, 63 Ælfmær, 57-8 Ælfmær, abbot, 57-8 Ælfmær, archdeacon, 58 Ælfric, abbot of Eynsham, 5, 40, 89 Ælfric, archbishop of Canterbury, 25, 33, 36-7, 46, 49, 89 Ælfric, brother of Ealdorman Eadric, 48 Ælfric, ealdorman of Hampshire, 29, 44-5 Ælfric, ealdorman of Mercia, 18, 21-2, 30 Ælfsige, abbot of Peterborough, 61 Ælfsige, bishop of Winchester, archbishop of Canterbury, 82-3 Ælfstan, bishop of London, 4, 29 Ælfstan, bishop of Rochester, 29 Ælfstan, bishop of Wiltshire, 105 Ælfthryth mother of Æthelred II, 1, 73, 77, 85 marriage settlement, 1 ‘legitimate wife of the king’, 2, 7, 11, 84-5 ‘protectoress’ of nunneries, 6-7 Regularis Concordia, 6 political influence, 7, 10-12, 15 ascendancy of her political party, 17 loss of political influence, 22, 26 restored to political influence, 23, 30, 35 ‘implicated’ in the murder of Edward the Martyr, 77-8 Ælfthryth, sister of Ealdorman Ælfhelm, 47 Ælfweard, kings reeve, 57 Ælfwig, bishop of London, 63, 101 Ælfwine, son of Ealdorman Ælfric, 22, 30 Ælfwold, 13, 105 Æscwig bishop of Lincoln, 28 Æscwig bishop of Dorchester, 29, 89 Æthelflæd the Fair, see Æthelfreda Æthelfreda, wife of King Edgar, 11 Æthelgar, abbot of New Minster, 5, 105 Æthelgifu, King Eadwig’s mother-in-law, 4 Æþelingadene, see Dean Æthelmær, brother of Ealdorman Eadric, 48-9 Æthelmær, ealdorman of Hampshire, 105 Æthelmær, the king’s kinsman, 49, 61 Æthelred II king of the English, emperor of all the peoples of Britain, 1 date of birth, 1, 84-5 family, 1-2, 8, 11, 16, 99 prospects of succession, 7, 10 heir to King Edward, 11-13 accession and consecration, 13, 15-17, 40, 72-3, 76-8, 87, 99, 105 influence of Bishop Æthelwold, 5, 20 period of peace, 9, 15, 18, 72 basileus, 18 promoted cult of royal saints, 12, 37, 73-4 military expeditions, 18-19, 26, 39-40, 46, 49, 52, 55, 58 estates of Mercian ealdormanry forfeited to the king, 22, 26 ‘anti-monastic’ policy, 22, 24, 26 Dunstan’s influence, 22

regrets ‘anti-monastic’ phase, 23, 26, 35 mentioned in poem Battle of Maldon, 27 agreed truce with Scandinavian here in 991, 28 sent fleet against the Scandinavian here, 29-30 agreed truce with Scandinavian here in 994, 32 sponsored King Olaf at his confirmation, 32-3, 35-6 treaty with mercenary army, 32-3, 36, 38, 111 deployment of mercenary army 33-4, 36, 38, 40-1 campaigned in ‘Cumberland’, 39-41 betrayed by Pallig and mercenary army, 40-41 agreed truce with Scandinavian here in 1001, 40-41 marriage to Emma of Normandy, 41 ordered the killing of all deniscan men (mercenaries), 41, 43-4, 90 did not employ a mercenary army for ten years, 42, 45, 51, 53 countered Swein Forkbeard’s invasions 1003-5, 45, 69-70 punished Ealdorman Ælfhelm and his sons, 46-8 influenced by Ealdorman Eadric, 47 made changes in the Witan, 49 negotiated truce with invading army, 1006-7, 50-1 naval campaign, 52-3 fleet destroyed by storm, 53-4, 56, 69 negotiated truce with invading army, 1011-12, 58 illnesses, 58, 64, 66-7, 70 engaged part of here as mercenary army, 59, 69 unsuccessful defence of England, 60-1 exile in Normandy, 63, 72, 74, 101 return and re-conquest of England, 63-5, 69-70, 72, 74 assembly at Oxford, 65-6 civil war, 67, 70, 72-3 death, 68-9, 72, 75, 77 law codes, 24, 26, 32-6, 42 coinage, 24, 26, 34, 38, 42-3, 46, 51, 55, 59, 69, 110-14, 118 economic developments, 24, 41, 43-4, 46, 55, 59-60, 69 fleets, 24-5, 29, 39, 51-3, 56 itinerary, 25, 39-41 ‘the Unready’, 26, 70, 72, 76 character, 15, 17, 23, 26, 35, 37, 39, 42, 46, 55, 69-70, 72, 78 development of a legend, 72-3, 74-9, 88, 91, 94-5, 99, 102-4 Æthelred of Mercia, 95 Æthelredian Exemplar, 3, 16, 19-20, 23, 28-33, 38-41, 44-54, 56-68, 70, 74-5, 86-9, 91-109 Æthelric, see Leofwine Æthelsige, king’s minister, 23 Æthelstan, ætheling son of King Æthelred, 53, 62, 64, 66 Æthelstan, aþum, 56 Æthelstan, king, 2, 5, 8, 84, 112 Æthelweard, brother of Ealdorman Eadric, 48 Æthelweard, ealdorman, 32, 36 Æthelwine, brother of Ealdorman Eadric, 48 Æthelwine, ealdorman of East Anglia, 13, 23-4, 28-30, 37, 84 Æthelwold, ealdorman of East Anglia, 1, 3, 7, 11, 77, 84 Æthelwold, bishop biographies, 5, 36-7, 89 born in Winchester, 5 taught by Bishop Ælfheah of Winchester, 5 monk at Glastonbury, 5 abbot of Abingdon, 5, 12 new monastic buildings, 5 sent a monk to Fleury to learn about the Rule of St Benedict, 5 bishop of Winchester, 3, 5, 7, 17, 86 expelled canons from Winchester, 5, 6, 10, 86 founded / re-founded monasteries at Ely, Burgh, Thorney, 5, 7, 20 political use of monasticism, 6, 8, 10, 20 Regularis Concordia, 6 influence on King Edgar, 7, 10, 20 supported Queen Ælfthryth and her son, 7 King Æthelred’s leading advisor, 12, 15, 17, 20, 26, 37 weakening of royal support, 22 death, 21, 22, 26, 36 recognised as a saint, 36-7 Æthelwyrd, 83 Alfred, ætheling, 61, 63 Alfred the Great, 1, 2, 28, 41, 69, 91, 94 Alps, mountain range, 25, 82-3

126

Andover, 32, 35-6 Anglesey, 19 Anglo-Saxon Charters, 82 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 3, 10, 17, 19, 23, 28, 39-40, 44, 48-9, 63, 73-5, 80-8, 91-109, 111, 114-15, 118 Anglo-Saxons, 18-19, 25, 27, 111 Anti-monastic reaction, 12-13 Arnulf, count of Flanders, 4 Ascension Day, 56 Ashingdon, battle, 71 Athelstan, see Æthelstan

Chronicle of Sigebert of Gembloux, 99 Chronicle of the Reign of King Æthelred, 96-7, 103 Chronicle of Thietmar of Merseburg, see Thietmar of Merseburg Chronological analysis, 80-1 Cirencester, 22 Climate, 24 Cnut, with Swein Forkbeard’s invasion in 1013, 61, 63 married Ælfgifu, daughter of Ealdorman Ælfhelm, 47, 62 succeeded Swein Forkbeard, 63-5, 75, 101 driven from England, 64-5 invaded England, 64, 66-8, 70-1, 75, 77 instigated killing of Earl Uhtred, 68 victory at Ashingdon, 71 agreement and marriage with Queen Emma, 71 king of all England, 71, 76 devalued coinage, 43, 116-17 coins, 110, 113-14 , 118 silver pound weight, 117 Coins Edgar’s reforms, 9, 25-6 fiduciary element, 42-3, 111-12 inflation, 26, 43 premium, 25-6, 43, 69, 114, 116-17 silver currency, 25, 42-3, 69, 111-14 ‘normal small cross’ (premium of 80 pence) 26 ‘first hand’ (premium 32 pence) 26 ‘benediction hand’ (premium 16 pence) 43 ‘crux’ (premiums 16 pence and 64 pence) 43 ‘intermediate small cross (premium 8 pence) 43, 55 ‘long cross (premiums 8 pence and 64 pence) 55 ‘helmet’ (premium of 64 pence), 55, 69 ‘agnus dei’ (low premium), 55, 69 ‘last small cross’ (premium of 88 pence), 59, 69 Æthelred’s coinage laws, 34, 111 Coins of Edgar, Edward, Æthelred and Cnut, 110 Velocity of circulation, 114 Communications, 25 Cookham, 48 Corfesgeat, 75, 105 Cornwall, 19, 33, 38, 105 Cosham, 67 Cricklade, 67 Cubbin, G. P., 92, 93-4 Cumberland, 39-41 Currency, see Coins Cyneweard, abbot of Milton, 5 Cynsige, bishop, 4 Cyrograph, 66

‘B’, Archbishop Dunstan’s first biographer, 4, 36 Baltic Sea, 27, 31, 34, 40, 44, 60 Bamburgh, 30-1 Basileus, 8, 18 Bath, 10, 61, 113 Battle of Maldon, poem, 26-8, 30 Bavaria, 8 Bede, 95, 102-3 Bedford, 57 Bedfordshire, 57, 67 Bedwyn, 12 Benedictine monastic reform, 3 Benson, 24 Beorhtweald, bishop of Ramsbury, 49 Berkshire, 50, 54, 57 Birch, Walter De Gray, 82-5 Blewbury, 24 Blandinium, monastery in Ghent, Flanders, 4, 36, 73 Bradford-on-Avon, 37, 73 Briffa, K. R., 24 Brihtric, brother of Ealdorman Eadric, 48-9, 53 Brihtwold, see Beorhtweald Bristol Channel, 105 Britain, 1, 69, 75-6, 98, 105, 111 British Isles, 18, 25, 39, 69, 117 British kings, 18-19 British Library, MS Cotton Tiberius B iv, 91-109, 104 Britons, 18, 61 Brittany, 95 Bromdun, 24, 35 Buckinghamshire, 57, 67 Burbage, 12 Burgh (Peterborough), 5, 36, 61 Burgundy, 25 Burton Abbey, 46 Byrhtferth, monk of Ramsey, 12-13, 86 Byrhthelm, bishop of Wells, archbishop of Canterbury, 4, 82 Byrhtnoth, ealdorman of Essex, 3, 13, 22-3, 27-8, 30, 41 Byzantine Empire, 105 Byzantium, 32

Danelaw, 3-4, 9, 20, 35, 37, 42, 46-7, 56-8, 60-2, 65-7, 69, 90 Danes, 4, 18, 37, 39, 90 Darby, H. C., 24 Dean, site of battle in 1001, 28, 40 Dei Amicus ‘friend of God’, see Æthelwine, ealdorman of East Anglia Dendroclimatology, 24 Deniscan (Danish) word used to describe invading army, 41 Denmark, 27-8, 31, 33, 38, 40, 45, 49, 52, 54, 59-60, 65, 67, 75, 77, 117 Devon, 19, 33, 38-41, 44, 90, 105 Devonshire, see Devon Domesday Book, 24 Dorset, 19, 38, 67, 105 Dublin, 33, 41 Dunstan, archbishop of Canterbury archbishop and saint, 3, 15, 36, 86, 105 biographies, 4, 36-7, 73-4, 76-7 councillor to King Edmund, 3 abbot of Glastonbury, 3 promoted monastic reform, 3 ‘chief advisor’ to King Eadred, 3 encouraged Eadred to appoint Æthelwold abbot of Abingdon, 5 enmity of King Eadwig, 3-4 banished from Court, 4 stayed at Blandinium monastery, 4 returned to England, 4 befriended by Edgar, 4 bishop of Worcester, 4

Cæsar, 105 Calne, 105 Cambridge, 56 Cambridgeshire, 56-7 Canterbury, 6, 25, 28, 40, 49, 54, 57-8, 60, 62, 65, 73, 76, 89, 96-7, 101, 103 Canute, see Cnut Caput anni, 80-1 Celibate clergy, 6 Celts, 20, 27, 33 Cenwulf, abbot of Peterborough, 29, 36, 49 bishop of Winchester, 5, 49 Cerdic, 1, 2, 69, 76-7, 79 Cerney, 22 Channel, 10, 19, 32-3, 38, 41, 44, 52, 56, 61 Cheney, Christopher R., 83-4 Chertsey, 5 Chester, 10, 18, 39, 67, 105, 113 Christ, 12 Christianity, 4, 58 Christmas, 57, 61, 86 Chronicle of Æthelweard, 84 Chronicle of John of Worcester, see John of Worcester

127

bishop of London, 4 ignored Canon Law, 4 archbishop of Canterbury, 4 received pallium from Pope John XII, 4 encouraged development of monastic foundations, 4-5, 20, 24 consecrated Æthelwold as bishop of Winchester, 5 political use of monasticism, 6, 8 did not expel canons, 6, 37 Regularis Concordia, 6 influence on King Edgar, 7, 10-11 supported Edward’s succession, 7-8, 10-11, 22, 77 reaction to political use of monasticism, 13, 22 consecration of King Æthelred, 17, 87 relationship with King Æthelred, 16, 26, 77 views on kingship, 22 death, 23, 36, 77, 89 recognised as a saint, 36-7

laws, 35-6, 42 itinerary, 25 death, 7, 10, 12, 15, 73, 85-6 charters, 83 coins, 110 Edith, daughter of Edward the Elder, wife of Otto the Great, 2, 8, 105 Edith, daughter of King Edgar, 2, 11, 37, 73-4 Edmund, king, 2-3, 86 Edmund Ironside, son of King Æthelred, 53, 62, 64 early campaigns, 53, 64, 66 succession dispute, 66-8, 70, 75 married Ealdgyth, niece of Ealdorman Ælfhelm, 47, 66 campaigns against Cnut, 67-8, 70-1, 75 king, 68, 70 propaganda assistance of the Æthelredian Exemplar, 56, 75-6, 88, 91, 95, 99, 102-4 gained support of Ealdorman Eadric, 71 defeated at Ashingdon, 71 death, 71, 76, 101-4 Edmund, son of Edmund Ironside, 66 Edmund, the ætheling son of King Edgar, 1-2, 11, 84-5 ‘legitimate son’, 2, 7 death, 3, 7-8, 10, 85-6 Edward, ætheling, son of Edmund Ironside, 66 Edward (the Confessor), son of King Æthelred, 52, 61, 63-4, 66, 68, 70-1, 75-6 Edward the Elder, 2, 60, 95, 99, 105, 113 Edward the Martyr, son of King Edgar, 1-2, 85 mother, 11 prospects of succession, 7, 10-11 education, 8 perceptions of royal power, 10 elected king, 12, 73, 77 a troubled reign, 12-13, 23-4, 26, 72 return of monastic land to secular use, 12, 22, 26 character, 13 murder, 13-15, 18, 26, 37, 58, 73-7, 79, 85-7, 95, 98-9, 102-3, 105 translations, 17-18, 37, 73, 75-6, 87 miracles, 18, 37, 73, 75-7, 87 recognised as a saint, 13, 37, 73-7, 79, 87, 98, 105 development of legend, 72-9, 102-3 coins, 110 Edwin, ealdorman of Sussex, 105 Edwin, abbot of Abingdon, 100-1 Eglaf Thorgilsson, 49, 54 Eilaf, see Eglaf Thorgilsson Eirik Hákonarson, earl of Lade, 33, 64, 67-8, 71 Elbe, river, 8 Ely, 5 Emma, queen, marriage to King Æthelred, 41 marriage settlement, 44 defence of London, 56 exile in Normandy, 61 assembly at Oxford, 66 influence on her sons, Edward and Alfred, 64, 66, 68 civil war, 67, 70-1 defence of London, 68 agreement and marriage with King Cnut, 71 exile in Flanders, 64 commissioned the Encomium Emmae Reginae, 59 Encomium Emmae Reginae, 57, 59, 67 Eneda, see Æthelfreda England, 1, 6-9, 13, 15-16, 19-20, 23-5, 27-30, 32-45, 47, 49-52, 54, 57-71, 74, 76-78, 90, 100, 111-13, 118 Enham, 51 Eric, see Eirik Hákonarson Essex, 31, 56-7, 60 Estonia, 117 Europe, 18 Exe, river, 40 Exemplars, 92 Exeter, 44 Eynsham, 49

Eadflæd, wife of Ealdorman Ælfhere, 22 Eadgifu, grandmother of King Edgar, 85 Eadmer, precentor of Christchurch, Canterbury, 11, 78 Eadnoth, bishop, 58 Eadred, ætheling son of King Æthelred, 53 Eadred, king, 2-3, 5, 15, 17, 41, 81-2, 86 Eadric, ealdorman of Mercia, 30, 47-8, 51 known as ‘Streona’, 48 family, 48-9, 53 betrayed Ealdorman Ælfhelm, 48 adverse propaganda, 48, 55-6 campaigns, 53, 55 truce with Scandinavian here, 1012, 58-9 assembly at Oxford, 65-6 opposed Edmund Ironside, 56, 67-8, 70, 100 civil war, 67-8, 70 briefly supported Edmund Ironside, 71 brought about Edmund’s defeat at Ashingdon, 71, 103 agreement to end civil war, 71 death, 71 Eadwig, brother of Æfic, 56 Eadwig, king, 1-5, 7, 9, 15, 27, 82-4, 86 Eadwig, son of King Æthelred, 62, 66, 101-4 Ealdgyth, niece of Ealdorman Ælfhelm, 47 Ealdred, bishop of Worcester, 104 Ealdwulf, abbot of Peterborough, 29, 36 Ealhhelm, ealdorman of Mercia, 22, 30 Earle, John, 94 East Anglia, 6-7, 29, 41, 45, 56-7, 60, 62, 65, 100 Easter, 15-17, 52, 56, 58-9, 64, 68, 99, 105 Eastern Roman Empire, 18 Ecclesiastical History of the English People, 95, 102-3 Edgar the Peaceable opposition to King Eadwig, 4 ‘returned’ Bishop Byrhthelm to Wells from Canterbury, 4 appointed Dunstan archbishop of Canterbury, 4 marriage to Ælfthryth, 1-2, 7, 11, 77, 84 father of King Æthelred II, 1-2 children, 1-3, 11 refoundation of New Minster, Winchester, 1-2, 7, 85 encouraged the development of monastic foundations, 4-6, 12, 16, 85 made Æthelwold bishop of Winchester, 5 made Oswald archbishop of York, 20 permitted Æthelwold to expel canons from Winchester, 5-6 political use of monasticism, 6, 8 apparent neutrality on expulsion of canons, 6 ‘protector’ of monasteries, 6-7 Regularis Concordia, 6 centralised authority on himself, 7-10, 15, 26 imperial policy, 8-10, 18 monetary policy, 9, 25-6, 112-13 benefited from period of peace, 9, 15, 103, 113 harried Thanet, 23 employment of mercenaries, 10 coronation at Bath, 10, 16, 61, 86, 113 held court at Chester, 10, 18, 113 divisive policies, 10 fleet, 10, 52

128

John of Worcester, 11, 16, 29, 47-9, 54, 57-8, 82, 84-5, 87, 104 John XII, Pope, 4 Joscelyn, John, 96 Jost, Karl, 95 Jósteinn, 27, 31, 34 Jutland, 34

Fabian policy, 56-7 Famine, 44-5, 65 Farnborough, 22 Fiduciary element in English silver coinage, 9, 110-19 Finberg, H. P. R., 83 Finland, 117 Five Boroughs, 60, 66 Flanders, 25, 36, 61, 64, 73 Fleury, 5, 20, 23-4 Florence, 80 Foss Dyke, 24 Fræna, 30-1 France, 20, 25 Franconia, 8 Frome, river, 38, 67 Frythegyst, 30-1

Keller, Wolfgang, 94 Kemble, John M., 83 Kennet, river, 50 Kent, 28, 31-2, 36, 39, 41, 54-7, 60, 67, 89 Ker, Neil R., 92-4, 96 Keynes, Simon, 17-18, 23, 46-47, 72, 83, 86, 89 Kingston upon Thames, 8, 15-17, 87, 99, 105 Lammas, 53 ‘Land between the Mersey and Ribble’, 60 Land’s End, 38 Law codes, IV Æthelred, 26, 34-5 II Æthelred, 32-3, 35, 38 I Æthelred (Woodstock code), 35 III Æthelred (Wantage code), 35 V Æthelred, 51-2, 54 VI Æthelred, 51, 54 VII Æthelred, 54-5 X Æthelred, 51 Evidence of separate legislation for ‘Danes’ and Northumbrians, 36 Archbishop Wulfstan’s influence, 51 Legitimacy, 1 Leofrun, abbess, 57 Leofsige, ealdorman of Essex, 41 Leofwine, father of Ealdorman Eadric, 48 Leofwine of East Anglia, father of Wulf, 56 Liber Eliensis, 82 Life of St Æthelwold, 89 Life of Dunstan by Adelard, 73-4, 77 Life of Dunstan by ‘B’, 73-4, 77, 82 Life of Dunstan by Osbern, 76-7 Life of Edmund Ironside, 48 Life of St Oswald, 37, 73-5, 85-7 Lincoln, 24-5, 61 Lincolnshire, 68 Lindsey, 30, 60, 64-5 Liðsmannaflokkr, 68 Liudolf, duke of Saxony, 8 Liudolf, duke of Swabia, 2, 8, 105 Liudolfingers, 8 Loire, river, 5, 20 London, bishopric, 4-5, 62-3, 74, 101-3 synod, 46 fires, 25, 86 size, 25, 60, 65 trade, 25, 65 port, 29, 53 burh, 31-2, 34, 56, 58-63, 65, 67-71, 77, 88, 95, 105 London Bridge, 31, 56, 61, 65, 68 Lydford, 38

Gainsborough, 60, 61, 63-4 Garmonsway, G. N., 93, 95 Gerbert d’ Aurillac, 111 Germanus, abbot of Winchcombe, 13 Germany, 25, 55, 86 Ghent, 105 Glastonbury, 5 God, 6-7, 11-13, 16, 23, 42, 46, 51-2, 55-6, 58, 65, 74-5, 76-9, 98-9, 103, 105 Goda, brother of Ealdorman Eadric, 48 Goda, Devonshire thegn, 19 Godwine, bishop, 57 Godwine, earl of the West Saxons, 48-9, 53 Godwine, leader of English fyrd in 993, 30-1 Godwine Porthund, 48 Gold, 42, 69 Goscelin, 37, 76-7 Greenland, 24 Greenwich, 58, 60-1, 65, 68 Guthmund Steitarson, 34 Gytha, daughter of Swein Forkbeard, 33 Hákon Sigurdsson, earl, ruler of Norway, 32-4 Hákon the Good, king of Norway, 4 Hamburg, 76 Hampshire, 31-2, 39-40, 44, 50, 54, 57 Handbook of Dates, 83-4 Harald Bluetooth, see Harald Gormsson Harald Fairhair, king of Norway, 31 Harald Gormsson, king of Denmark, 4, 27 Harold Cnutsson, king of England, 47 Harrying, 19, 23, 26, 39 Hastings, 57 Heimskringla, 84 Helig, 82 Hemingr Strut-Haraldsson, 49, 54, 57, 59 Hemming, see Hemingr Strut-Haraldsson Henry the Fowler, 8, 16 Herelufu, abbess of Shaftesbury, 105 Hermeneutic style, 87 Hertfordshire, 57 Hill, D., 24 History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, 76-7 Holmgard, see Novgorod Hugh, 44 Humber, river, 30-1, 60 Huntingdonshire, 57, 67 Hurstbourne, 12

Magdeburg, archbishopric, 6 Maldon, 27-31 Malmesbury, 66 Maredudd ab Owain ap Hywel Dda, 19 Martinmas, 50, 56 Medway, 39 Mercenaries, mercenary army, 10, 32-6, 38, 40-5, 59-62, 65, 67, 69-70, 115 Mercia, 26, 36-7, 42-3, 47-9, 56, 60, 65, 67-9, 83 Mercian Register, 95, 102-3 Mersey, river, 60 Michaelmas, 57 Middlesex, 57 Minister, 18, 21 Miles, 18-19, 21, 58 Milton (Abbas), 5 Monasticism, 6

Iceland, 33 Ipswich, 27-8, 56 Ireland, 18, 25 Irish Sea, 10, 18-20, 32-3, 36, 38-41 Isle of Dogs, 56 Isle of Man, 33, 39, 41 Isle of Thanet, see Thanet Isle of Wight, 32, 39, 40, 44, 50, 52-5, 60-3, 114 Italy, 25, 105

129

Monetary reform, 8-9 Moneyers regulation, 9, 25, 43, 69, 111-12 punishment, 9, 25 payment, 9, 25, 111 Morcar, 46-7, 60-2, 66 MS Cotton Tiberius Biv, 91-109 Murrain, 23

Pallig, 40-1 Papacy, 4, 25, 51 Parker, Matthew, archbishop of Canterbury, 96 Passio Edwardi, 75-7 Peterborough – see Burgh Peterborough manuscript, 96, 100 ‘Peter’s Pence’, 25 Pinhoe, 40 Pisa, 80 Plummer, Charles, 82-3, 89, 94-5 Poland, see Pomerania Pomerania, 32 Pope, see Papacy Portland, 19, 105 ‘Premium’ see Coins

New Minster, Winchester refoundation, 1, 5, 85, 105 Nicholas, monk at Winchester, 11 Norman Conquest, 73, 76-7, 96 Normandy, 39, 41, 61-2, 64 Normans, 44 Northampton, 57, 61-2 Northamptonshire, 57, 67 Northern England, 4 Northumbria, 3, 30, 33, 41, 60-2, 67-9 Northumbrians, 3, 60, 68-9 Norway, 32-4, 36-7, 40, 44, 47, 57, 64, 67, 117 Norwich, 25, 45 Nottinghamshire, 68 Novgorod, 27, 31

Quadripartitus, 35 Ramsey, 12-13, 24, 28-9, 73 Reading, 24, 50 Regularis Concordia, 6 Ribble, river, 41, 60 Richard, duke of Normandy, 61 Ridyard, S., 37 Rochester, 23, 26, 39 Rogation Days, 68 Roman roads, 24, 60 Romans, 24, 56, 61 Rome, 4, 25, 51, 82-3, 101 Romsey Abbey, 85 Rouen, 32 Royal authority, 6 Rule of St Benedict, 5-6, 20 Rules of succession, 1 Russia, 27, 31-2, 117

Obit, 81 Oda, archbishop of Canterbury, 4, 20, 82-3 Oder, river, 8 Olaf Haraldsson, 57, 59, 64-5, 70 Olaf Tryggvason, son of King Tryggvi, descended from King Harald Fairhair, 27 journeyed to England, 27 battle of Maldon, 31 attacked London, 31 made peace with King Æthelred, 32-3, 35-6, 70 mercenary activities, 33-4, 38 king of Norway, 32-4, 37-9 Baltic campaign, 34, 40, 64 defeated and killed at battle of Svold, 34, 40, 44, 64 Old Minster (Winchester), 5 Olof, king of Sweden, 33 Ordberht, abbot of Chertsey, 5 Ordgar, ealdorman of Devon, 1, 11, 84 Ordmær, see Ordmer Ordmer, ealdorman, 11 Ordulf, see Ordwulf Ordwulf, 17, 37-8, 49 Osbern, precentor of Christchurch, Canterbury, 11, 48, 58, 76-8 Osgar monk, 5 abbot of Abingdon, 5 Oswald, bishop of Worcester, archbishop of York, biography, 37 Archbishop Oda’s nephew, 4, 20 trained at Fleury as a monk, 20 bishop of Worcester, 4, 20 did not expel canons, 20, 37 archbishop of York, 6, 20 a leader of monastic reform, 20, 24, 37 political use of monasticism, 8, 13, 20, 37 major political role in Worcester and York, 20, 26, 36-7 military expeditions, 21 consecration of King Æthelred, 17, 87 influence on the king, 23 consecration of Ramsey Abbey, 28 death, 29-30, 36 Oswig, 56 Otto I, the Great, emperor, 2, 4-6, 8-9, 105 Otto II, 8, 10, 105 Otto III, 8 Otto, duke of Swabia and Bavaria, 8, 105 Ouse, river 57 Oxford, 41-2, 56, 61-2, 65-7, 70, 89-90, 95 Oxfordshire, 57 Oxygen isotope variations, 24

St Andrew, 90 St Augustine of Hippo, 23, 35 St Augustine’s Monastery, 58 St Benedict, 5, 46 St Brice’s Day Massacre, 41-4, 47, 60, 65, 90 St Clement, 81 St Cnut, king of Denmark, 77 St Frideswide’s Monastery, 41-2, 47, 89 St George, 68 St Jude, 22 St Juliana, 63, 101 St Mary, 12, 29, 31, 36-7, 57, 66 St Michael, 65 St Olaf, see Olaf Haraldsson St Paul, 6-7 St Paul’s Minster, 25, 58, 103 St Petroc’s monastery, 19, 105 St Simon, 22 St Wulfthryth, see Wulfthryth, abbess of Wilton Salisbury, 44-5 Sandwich, 49, 52-4, 60, 64, 67 Saracens, 105 Sawyer, Peter, 82-3, 89 Saxony, 4, 8, 33-4, 64 Scandinavia, 25, 30, 33-4, 38-40, 42, 44-5, 49, 59, 69, 118 Scandinavian invasions, 4, 13, 16, 20, 23, 26-32, 34-5, 39-45, 49-61, 65, 67-70, 72, 74, 78-9, 88, 102, 105, 114 Scandinavian mercenaries, 10, 19, 32-43, 59, 61, 65, 67, 69-70, 114 Scotland, 36, 41 Selsey, 105 Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, 74-5 Severn Estuary, 18-21, 32-3, 38 Shaftesbury, 18, 37, 73, 75-6, 87, 99, 105 Sheppey, isle of, 28 Sherborne, 105 Shrewsbury, 48 Shropshire, 50, 67 Sigebert of Gembloux, 16, 99 Sigeferth, thegn, 46-7, 60-2, 66 Sigeferth, bishop of Lindsey, 35 Sigeric, archbishop of Canterbury, 28, 33, 36-7, 88-9, 100-1

Padstow, 105

130

Sigrid, queen of Sweden, 33 Slavery, 7 Slavs, 4, 8, 27 Somerset, 19, 38, 40, 67 Southampton, 19, 32, 88, 99, 105 Southern, R. W., 7 Southwark, 56, 61-2, 65, 68-71 Spain, 111 Staffordshire, 67 Staines, 56 Stamford, 68 Stenton, Frank, 89, 94 Stevenson, W. H., 82-3 Strathclyde, 39-41 Surry, 15, 56-7 Sussex, 31-2, 39-40, 54, 57 Sutton Courtney, 24 Svold, battle of, 34, 40, 44 Swabia, 8 Swanton, Michael, 91 Sweden, 27, 32-4, 117 Swein Cnutsson, king of Norway, 47, 65 Swein Forkbeard, succeeds his father as king of Denmark, 27 exiled to England, 27 attacked London, 31 activities as mercenary, 33 returned to Denmark, 33-4, 38, 49 married Sigrid, dowager queen of Sweden, 33-4 victory at battle of Svold, 34, 40 hegemony over most of Scandinavia, 40, 44 encouraged invasions of England, 34, 39-40, 44, 49 led invasions of England, 44-5, 47, 57, 59-61, 69 use of English waterways, 24 conquest of England, 59-65, 68-70, 101 death, 62-4, 69, 101 body transported to Denmark, 65 Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions and the Danish Conquest of England, 91, 100 Swein Haraldsson, see Swein Forkbeard Swein Ulfsson, 77

Wales, 19, 33, 36, 38, 105 Wallingford, 24, 50, 56, 61-2 Waltheof, earl, 30 Wantage, 35 Wareham, 18, 75-6, 98, 105 Warwickshire, 67 Wash, 24 Watchet, 19, 38, 88, 100 Watling Street, 60-1, 65, 70 Waverley, 16 Wheloc, Abraham, 91 Welsh annals, 19 Wergeld, 52 Wessex, 6, 8, 25, 32, 36, 44, 49-50, 55-7, 60, 62, 64, 67-70, 95, 112 West Saxons, kingdom of, 1 Whitelock, Dorothy, 82-4, 89-90, 94, 100 Wight, isle of, see Isle of Wight William of Malmesbury, 5, 11, 17, 78, 85 William of Normandy, the Conqueror, 77 Wilton, 44-5 Wiltshire, 44, 49, 57, 67, 105 Winchcombe, 13 Winchester, 1, 5-7, 17, 19, 22, 29, 40, 49-50, 61-2, 73, 77, 85-6, 105 Witan, 1, 3, 7, 10-13, 15, 18, 20-3, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 39-43, 45-6, 50, 53-5, 57-60, 63, 68-70, 73, 85, 114 Witham, river, 24 Womar, abbot of Ghent, 105 Woodstock, 35 Worcester, 4, 20-1, 29-30, 36-7, 49, 60, 74, 97, 103-4 Wormald, Dr P., 23-4, 34-5 Wormleighton, 22 Wulf, Leofwine’s son, 56 Wulfgar, abbot of Abingdon, 100, 105 Wulfgeat, 47-8 Wulfheah, son of Ealdorman Ælfhelm, 46-48 Wulfnoth Cild, 53 Wulfnoth, great-nephew of Ealdorman Eadric, 48 Wulfric Spott, 46-8 Wulfrun, mother of Wulfric Spott and Ealdorman Ælfhelm, 46-7 Wulfstan, archbishop of York, 45, 61, 63, 74, 101, 104 support for Ulfcetel, 45 law codes, 51-2, 54-5, 74 supported Swein Forkbeard, 61-3, 74, 101 sponsorship of Æthelredian Exemplar, 45, 58, 74-6, 95, 99, 101-4 Wulfstan, precentor of Winchester, 5 Wulfthryth, abbess of Wilton, 11 Wulfwyn, abbess of Wareham, 105 Wyrdwriteras, 40

Tamer, river, 38 Tavistock Abbey, 17, 37-8, 49 Tempsford, 57 Tettenheal, battle, 95 Thames, river, 24, 31, 39, 50, 56-8, 60-1, 65, 67-8, 71 Thames Valley, 3, 7-8, 25, 31, 56-7, 66, 69-70 Thanet, 23, 28, 54, 105 The Diplomas of King Æthelred the Unready, 72 Thetford, 45, 56 Thietmar of Merseburg, 33, 55, 64, 68 Thored, earl of Northumbria, 29 Thorkell the Tall, 54-5, 57, 59-65, 67-71, 100 Thorney, 5 Thorp, Benjamin, 94, 98 Thurcetel Mare’s Head, 56 Thurcytel, Nafena’s son, 68 Torksey, 24 Tostig, 49, 52 Trent, river, 24, 60, 63 Trials by ordeal, 6 Tryggvi, Norwegian king, 27, 31

York, 6, 20, 24-5, 36, 58, 60, 62-5, 68, 96-7, 101, 103-4 Yorkshire, 60

Ufegeat, son of Ealdorman Ælfhelm, 46-8 Uhtred, son of Earl Waltheof, 30 submitted to Swein Forkbeard, 60-2, 68 civil war in 1016, 67-8 death, 68, 100 Ulfcetel, 45, 56-7, 60-2, 65-6, 102 Ulfcytel, see Ulfcetel Vikings, 18-19 Vita Elphegi, 58 Vouching to warranty, 35, 42

131