founder Ælle, the first Bretwalda. Whatever importance Essex,
or its offshoot, Middlesex, could claim as containing the
great city of London was of no long duration. We soon find
London fluctuating between the condition of an independent
commonwealth, and that of a dependency of the Mercian Kings.
Very different was the destiny of the third Saxon Kingdom.
Wessex has grown into England, England into Great Britain,
Great Britain into the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom into
the British Empire. Every prince who has ruled England before
and since the eleventh century [the interval of the Danish
kings, Harold, son of Godwine, and William the Conqueror, who
were not of the West Saxon house] has had the blood of Cerdic
the West Saxon in his veins. At the close of the sixth century
Wessex had risen to high importance among the English
Kingdoms, though the days of its permanent supremacy were
still far distant."
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 2, section 1._
{782}
ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
The conquests of the Angles.
The founding of their kingdoms.
Northwards of the East Saxons was established the kingdom of
the East Angles, in which a northern and a southern people
(Northfolc and Suthfolc) were distinguished. It is probable
that, even during the last period of the Roman sway, Germans
were settled in this part of Britain; a supposition that gains
probability from several old Saxon sagas, which have reference
to East Anglia at a period anterior to the coming of Hengest
and Horsa. The land of the Gyrwas, containing 1,200 hides ...
comprised the neighbouring marsh districts of Ely and
Huntingdonshire, almost as far as Lincoln. Of the East Angles
Wehwa, or Wewa, or more commonly his son Uffa, or Wuffa, from
whom his race derived their patronymic of Uffings or Wuffings,
is recorded as the first king. The neighbouring states of
Mercia originated in the marsh districts of the Lindisware, or
inhabitants of Lindsey (Lindesig), the northern part of
Lincolnshire. With these were united the Middle Angles. This
kingdom, divided by the Trent into a northern and a southern
portion, gradually extended itself to the borders of Wales.
Among the states which it comprised was the little Kingdom of
the Hwiccas, conterminous with the later diocese of Worcester,
or the counties of Gloucester, Worcester, and a part of
Warwick. This state, together with that of the Hecanas, bore
the common Germanic appellation of the land of the Magesætas.
... The country to the north of the Humber had suffered the
most severely from the inroads of the Picts and Scots. It
became at an early period separated into two British states,
the names of which were retained for some centuries, viz.:
Deifyr (Deora rice), afterwards Latinized into Deira,
extending from the Humber to the Tyne, and Berneich (Beorna
rice), afterwards Bernicia, from the Tyne to the Clyde. Here
also the settlements of the German races appear anterior to
the date given in the common accounts of the first Anglian
kings of those territories, in the middle of the sixth
century."
_J. M. Lappenberg,
History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings (Thorpe),
volume 1, pages 112-117._
The three Anglian kingdoms of Northumberland, Mercia and East
Anglia, "are altogether much larger than the Saxon and Jutish
Kingdoms, so you see very well why the land was called
'England' and not 'Saxony.' ... 'Saxonia' does occur now and
then, and it was really an older name than 'Anglia,' but it
soon went quite out of use. ... But some say that there were
either Jutes or Saxons in the North of England as soon or
sooner than there were in the south. If so, there is another
reason why the Scotch Celts as well as the Welsh, call us
Saxons. It is not unlikely that there may have been some small
Saxon or Jutish settlements there very early, but the great
Kingdom of Northumberland was certainly founded by Ida the
Angle in 547. It is more likely that there were some Teutonic
settlements there before him, because the Chronicle does not
say of him, as it does of Hengest, Cissa and Cerdie, that he
came into the land by the sea, but only that he began the
Kingdom. ... You must fully understand that in the old times
Northumberland meant the whole land north of the Humber,
reaching as far as the Firth of Forth. It thus takes in part
of what is now Scotland, including the city of Edinburgh, that
is Eadwinesburh, the town of the great Northumbrian King
Eadwine, or Edwin [Edwin of Deira, A. D. 617-633]. ... You
must not forget that Lothian and all that part of Scotland was
part of Northumberland, and that the people there are really
English, and still speak a tongue which has changed less from
the Old-English than the tongue of any other part of England.
And the real Scots, the Gael in the Highlands, call the
Lowland Scots 'Saxons,' just as much as they do the people of
England itself. This Northumbrian Kingdom was one of the
greatest Kingdoms in England, but it was often divided into
two, Beornicia [or Bernicia] and Deira, the latter of which
answered pretty nearly to Yorkshire. The chief city was the
old Roman town of Eboracum, which in Old-English is Eoforwic,
and which we cut short into York. York was for a long time the
greatest town in the North of England. There are now many
others much larger, but York is still the second city in
England in rank, and it gives its chief magistrate the title
of Lord-Mayor, as London· does, while in other cities and
towns the chief magistrate is merely the Mayor, without any
Lord. ... The great Anglian Kingdom of the Mercians, that is
the Marchmen, the people on the march or frontier, seems to
have been the youngest of all, and to have grown up gradually
by joining together several smaller states, including all the
land which the West Saxons had held north of the Thames. Such
little tribes or states were the Lindesfaras and the Gainas in
Lincolnshire, the Magesætas in Herefordshire, the Hwiccas in
Gloucester, Worcester, and part of Warwick, and several
others. ... When Mercia was fully joined under one King, it
made one of the greatest states in England, and some of the
Mercian Kings were very powerful princes. It was chiefly an
Anglian Kingdom; and the Kings were of an Anglian stock, but
among the Hwiccas and in some of the other shires in southern
and western Mercia, most of the people must really have been
Saxons."
_E. A. Freeman,
Old English History for Children,
chapter 5._
ENGLAND: A. D. 560.
Ethelbert becomes king of Kent.
ENGLAND: A. D. 593.
Ethelfrith becomes king of Northumbria.
ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685.
The conversion of the English.
"It happened that certain Saxon children were to be sold for
slaves at the marketplace at Rome; when Divine Providence, the
great clock-keeper of time, ordering not only hours, but even
instants (Luke ii. 38), to his own honour, so disposed it,
that Gregory, afterwards first bishop of Rome of that name,
was present to behold them. It grieved the good man to see the
disproportion betwixt the faces and fortunes, the complexions
and conditions, of these children, condemned to a servile
estate, though carrying liberal looks, so legible was
ingenuity in their faces. It added more to his sorrow, when he
conceived that those youths were twice vassals, bought by
their masters, and 'sold under sin' (Romans vii. 14), servants
in their bodies, and slaves in their souls to Satan; which
occasioned the good man to enter into further inquiry with the
merchants (which set them to sale) what they were and whence
they came, according to this ensuing dialogue:
Gregory.--'Whence come these captives?'
Merchants.--'From the isle of Britain.'
Gregory.--'Are those islanders Christians?'
Merchants.--'O no, they are Pagans.'
Gregory.--'It is sad that the author of darkness should
possess men with so bright faces. But what is the name of
their particular nation?'
Merchants.--'They are called Angli.'
Gregory.--'And well may, for their "angel like faces"; it
becometh such to be coheirs with the angels in heaven. In what
province of England did they live?'
Merchants.--'In Deira.'
Gregory.--'They are to be freed de Dei irâ, "from the anger of
God." How call ye the king of that country?'
Merchants.--'Ella.'
Gregory.--'Surely hallelujah ought to be sung in his kingdom
to the praise of that God who created all things.'
{783}
Thus Gregory's gracious heart set the sound of every word to
the time of spiritual goodness. Nor can his words be justly
censured for levity, if we consider how, in that age, the
elegance of poetry consisted in rhythm, and the eloquence of
prose in allusions. And which was the main, where his pleasant
conceits did end, there his pious endeavours began; which did
not terminate in a verbal jest, but produce real effects,
which ensued hereupon."
_Thomas Fuller,
The Church History of Britain,
book 2, section 1._
In 590 the good Gregory became Bishop of Rome, or Pope, and
six years later, still retaining the interest awakened in him
by the captive English youth, he dispatched a band of
missionary monks to Britain, with their prior, Augustine, at
their head. Once they turned back, affrighted by what they
heard of the ferocity of the new heathen possessors of the
once-Christian island of Britain; but Gregory laid his
commands upon them again, and in the spring of 597 they
crossed the channel from Gaul, landing at Ebbsfleet, in the
Isle of Thanet, where the Jutish invaders had made their first
landing, a century and a half before. They found Ethelbert of
Kent, the most powerful of the English kings at that time,
already prepared to receive them with tolerance, if not with
favor, through the influence of a Christian wife--queen
Bertha, of the royal family of the Franks. The conversion and
baptism of the Kentish king and court, and the acceptance of
the new faith by great numbers of the people followed quickly.
In November of the same year, 597, Augustine returned to Gaul
to receive his consecration as "Archbishop of the English,"
establishing the See of Canterbury, with the primacy which has
remained in it to the present day. The East Saxons were the
next to bow to the cross and in 604 a bishop, Mellitus, was
sent to London. This ended Augustine's work--and Gregory's--
for both died that year. Then followed an interval of little
progress in the work of the mission, and, afterwards, a
reaction towards idolatry which threatened to destroy it
altogether. But just at this time of discouragement in the
south, a great triumph of Christianity was brought about in
Northumberland, and due, there, as in Kent, to the influence
of a Christian queen. Edwin, the king, with many of his nobles
and his people, were baptised on Easter Eve, A. D. 627, and a new
center of missionary work was established at York. There, too,
an appalling reverse occurred, when Northumberland was
overrun, in 633, by Penda, the heathen king of Mercia; but the
kingdom rallied, and the Christian Church was reestablished,
not wholly, as before, under the patronage and rule of Rome,
but partly by a mission from the ancient Celtic Church, which
did not acknowledge the supremacy of Rome. In the end,
however, the Roman forms of Christianity prevailed, throughout
Britain, as elsewhere in western Europe. Before the end of the
7th century the religion of the Cross was established firmly
in all parts of the island, the South Saxons being the latest
to receive it. In the 8th century English missionaries were
laboring zealously for the conversion of their Saxon and
Frisian brethren on the continent.
_G. F. Maclear,
Conversion of the West; The English._
ALSO IN:
_The Venerable Bede,
Ecclesiastical History._
_H. Soames,
The Anglo Saxon Church._
_R. C. Jenkins,
Canterbury,
chapter 2._
ENGLAND:
End of the 6th. Century.
The extent, the limits and the character
of the Teutonic conquest.
"Before the end of the 6th century the Teutonic dominion
stretched from the German ocean to the Severn, and from the
English Channel to the Firth of Forth. The northern part of
the island was still held by Picts and Scots, Celtic tribes,
whose exact ethnical relation to each other hardly concerns
us. And the whole west side of the island, including not only
modern Wales, but the great Kingdom of Strathclyde, stretching
from Dumbarton to Chester, and the great peninsula containing
Cornwall, Devon and part of Somerset, was still in the hands
of independent Britons. The struggle had been a long and
severe one, and the natives often retained possession of a
defensible district long after the surrounding country had
been occupied by the invaders. It is therefore probable that,
at the end of the 6th century and even later, there may have
been within the English frontier inaccessible points where
detached bodies of Welshmen still retained a precarious
independence. It is probable also that, within the same
frontier, there still were Roman towns, tributary to the
conquerors rather than occupied by them. But by the end of the
6th century even these exceptions must have been few. The work
of the Conquest, as a whole, was accomplished. The Teutonic
settlers had occupied by far the greater part of the territory
which they ever were, in the strictest sense, to occupy. The
complete supremacy of the island was yet to be won; but that
was to be won, when it was won, by quite another process. The
English Conquest of Britain differed in several important
respects from every other settlement of a Teutonic people
within the limits of the Roman Empire. ... Though the literal
extirpation of a nation is an impossibility, there is every
reason to believe that the Celtic inhabitants of those parts
of Britain which had become English at the 6th century had
been as nearly extirpated as a nation can be. The women would
doubtless be largely spared, but as far as the male sex is
concerned, we may feel sure that death, emigration or personal
slavery were the only alternatives which the vanquished found
at the hands of our fathers. The nature of the small Celtic
element in our language would of itself prove the fact. Nearly
every Welsh word which has found its way into English
expresses some small domestic matter, such as women and slaves
would be concerned with."
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 2, section 1._
"A glance at the map shows that the mass of the local
nomenclature of England begins with the Teutonic conquest,
while the mass of the local nomenclature of France is older
than the Teutonic conquest. And, if we turn from the names on
the map to the living speech of men, there is the most
obvious, but the most important, of all facts, the fact that
Englishmen speak English and that Frenchmen speak French.
{784}
That is to say, in Gaul the speech of Rome lived through the
Teutonic conquest, while in Britain it perished in the
Teutonic conquest, if it had not passed away before. And
behind this is the fact, very much less obvious, a good deal
less important, but still very important, that in Gaul tongues
older than Latin live on only in corners as mere survivals,
while in Britain, while Latin has utterly vanished, a tongue
older than Latin still lives on as the common speech of an
appreciable part of the land. Here then is the final result
open to our own eyes. And it is a final result which could not
have come to pass unless the Teutonic conquest of Britain had
been something of an utterly different character from the
Teutonic conquest of Gaul--unless the amount of change, of
destruction, of havoc of every kind, above all, of slaughter
and driving out of the existing inhabitants, had been far
greater in Britain than it was in Gaul. If the Angles and
Saxons in Britain had been only as the Goths in Spain, or even
as the Franks in Gaul, it is inconceivable that the final
results should have been so utterly different in the two
cases. There is the plain fact: Gaul remained a Latin-speaking
land; England became a Teutonic-speaking land. The obvious
inference is that, while in Gaul the Teutonic conquest led to
no general displacement of the inhabitants, in England it did
lead to such a general displacement. In Gaul the Franks simply
settled among a subject people, among whom they themselves
were gradually merged; in Britain the Angles and Saxons slew
or drove out the people whom they found in the land, and
settled it again as a new people."
_E. A. Freeman,
The English People in its Three Homes
(Lectures to American Audiences),
pages 114-115._
"Almost to the close of the 6th century the English conquest
of Britain was a sheer dispossession of the conquered people;
and, so far as the English sword in these earlier days
reached, Britain became England, a land, that is, not of
Britons, but of Englishmen. There is no need to believe that
the clearing of the land meant the general slaughter of the
men who held it, or to account for such a slaughter by
supposed differences between the temper of the English and
those of other conquerors. ... The displacement of the
conquered people was only made possible by their own stubborn
resistance, and by the slow progress of the conquerors in the
teeth of it. Slaughter no doubt there was on the battlefield
or in towns like Anderida, whose long defence woke wrath in
their besiegers. But for the most part the Britons cannot have
been slaughtered; they were simply defeated and drew back."
_J. R. Green,
The Making of England,
chapter 4._
The view strongly stated above, as to the completeness of the
erasure of Romano-British society and influence from the whole
of England except its southwestern and north· western
counties, by the English conquest, is combated as strongly by
another less prominent school of recent historians,
represented, for example, by Mr. Henry C. Coote (The Romans of
Britain) and by Mr. Charles H. Pearson, who says: "We know
that fugitives from Britain settled largely during the 5th
century in Armorica and in Ireland; and we may perhaps accept
the legend of St. Ursula as proof that the flight, in some
instances, was directed to the more civilized parts of the
continent. But even the pious story of the 11,000 virgins is
sober and credible by the side of that history which assumes
that some million men and women were slaughtered or made
homeless by a few ship-loads of conquerors."
_C. H. Pearson,
History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
volume 1, chapter 6._
The opinion maintained by Prof. Freeman and Mr. Green (and, no
less, by Dr. Stubbs) is the now generally accepted one.
ENGLAND: 7th Century.
The so-called "Heptarchy."
"The old notion of an Heptarchy, of a regular system of seven
Kingdoms, united under the regular supremacy of a single
over-lord, is a dream which has passed away before the light
of historic criticism. The English Kingdoms in Britain were
ever fluctuating, alike in their number and in their relations
to one another. The number of perfectly independent states was
sometimes greater and sometimes less than the mystical seven,
and, till the beginning of the ninth century, the whole nation
did not admit the regular supremacy of any fixed and permanent
over-lord. Yet it is no less certain that, among the mass of
smaller and more obscure principalities, seven Kingdoms do
stand out in a marked way, seven Kingdoms of which it is
possible to recover something like a continuous history, seven
Kingdoms which alone supplied candidates for the dominion of
the whole island." These seven kingdoms were Kent, Sussex,
Essex, Wessex, East Anglia, Northumberland and Mercia.
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 2._
"After the territorial boundaries had become more settled,
there appeared at the commencement of the seventh century
seven or eight greater and smaller kingdoms. ... Historians
have described this condition of things as the Heptarchy,
disregarding the early disappearance of Sussex, and the
existence of still smaller kingdoms. But this grouping was
neither based upon equality, nor destined to last for any
length of time. It was the common interest of these smaller
states to withstand the sudden and often dangerous invasions
of their western and northern neighbours; and, accordingly,
whichever king was capable of successfully combating the
common foe, acquired for the time a certain superior rank,
which some historians denote by the title of Bretwalda. By
this name can only be understood an actual and recognized
temporary superiority; first ascribed to Ælla of Sussex, and
later passing to Northumbria, until Wessex finally attains a
real and lasting supremacy. It was geographical position which
determined these relations of superiority. The small kingdoms
in the west were shielded by the greater ones of
Northumberland, Mercia and Wessex, as though by
crescent-shaped forelands--which in their struggles with the
Welsh kingdoms, with Strathclyde and Cumbria, with Picts and
Scots, were continually in a state of martial activity. And so
the smaller western kingdoms followed the three warlike ones;
and round these Anglo-Saxon history revolved for two whole
centuries, until in Wessex we find a combination of most of
the conditions which are necessary to the existence of a great
State."
_R. Gneist,
History of the English Constitution,
chapter 3._
ENGLAND: A. D. 617.
Edwin becomes king of Northumbria.
ENGLAND: A. D. 634.
Oswald becomes king of Northumbria.
ENGLAND: A. D. 655.
Oswi becomes king of Northumbria.
{785}
ENGLAND: A. D. 670.
Egfrith becomes king of Northumbria.
ENGLAND: A. D. 688.
Ini becomes king of the West Saxons.
ENGLAND: A. D. 716.
Ethelbald becomes king of Mercia.
ENGLAND: A. D. 758.
Offa becomes king of Mercia.
ENGLAND: A. D. 794.
Cenwulf becomes king of Mercia.
ENGLAND: A. D. 800.
Accession of the West Saxon king Ecgberht.
ENGLAND: A. D. 800-836.
The supremacy of Wessex.
The first king of all the English.
"And now I have come to the reign of Ecgberht, the great
Bretwalda. He was an Ætheling of the blood of Cerdic, and he
is said to have been the son of Ealhmund, and Ealhmund is said
to have been an Under-king of Kent. For the old line of the
Kings of Kent had come to an end and Kent was now sometimes
under Wessex and sometimes under Mercia. ... When Beorhtric
died in 800, he [Ecgberht] was chosen King of the West-Saxons.
He reigned until 836, and in that time he brought all the
English Kingdoms, and the greater part of Britain, more or
less under his power. The southern part of the island, all
Kent, Sussex, and Essex, he joined on to his own Kingdom, and
set his sons or other Æthelings to reign over them as his
Under-kings. But Northumberland, Mercia, and East-Anglia were
not brought so completely under his power as this. Their Kings
submitted to Ecgberht and acknowledged him as their over-lord,
but they went on reigning in their own Kingdoms, and
assembling their own Wise Men, just as they did before. They
became what in after times was called his 'vassals,' what in
English was called being his 'men.' ... Besides the English
Kings, Ecgberht brought the Welsh, both in Wales and in
Cornwall, more completely under his power. ... So King
Ecgberht was Lord from the Irish Sea to the German Ocean, and
from the English Channel to the Firth of Forth. So it is not
wonderful if, in his charters, he not only called himself King
of the West-Saxons or King of the West-Saxons and Kentishmen,
but sometimes 'Rex Anglorum,' or 'King of the English.' But
amidst all this glory there were signs of great evils at hand.
The Danes came several times."
_E. A. Freeman,
Old English History for Children,
chapter 7._
ENGLAND: A. D. 836.
Accession of the West Saxon king Ethelwulf.
ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.
Conquests and settlements of the Danes.
The heroic struggle of Alfred the Great.
The "Peace of Wedmore" and the "Danelaw."
King Alfred's character and reign.