incorporated with his immediate dominions. The way in which
the thing was done was more remarkable than the thing itself.
Like the Romans, he made the fortified towns the means of
upholding his power. But unlike the Romans, he did not
garrison them with colonists from amongst his own immediate
dependents. He filled them, as Henry the Fowler did afterwards
in Saxony, with free townsmen, whose hearts were at one with
their fellow countrymen around. Before he died in 924, the
Danish chiefs in the land beyond the Humber had acknowledged
his overlordship, and even the Celts of Wales and Scotland had
given in their submission in some form which they were not
likely to interpret too strictly. His son and his two
grandsons, Athelstan, Edmund, and Edred completed the work,
and when after the short and troubled interval of Edwy's rule
in Wessex, Edgar united the undivided realm under his sway in
958, he had no internal enemies to suppress. He allowed the
Celtic Scottish King who had succeeded to the inheritance of
the Pictish race to possess the old Northumbrian land north of
the Tweed, where they and their descendants learned the habits
and speech of Englishmen. But he treated him and the other
Celtic kings distinctly as his inferiors, though it was
perhaps well for him that he did not attempt to impose upon
them any very tangible tokens of his supremacy. The story of
his being rowed by eight kings on the Dee is doubtless only a
legend by which the peaceful king was glorified in the
troubled times which followed. Such a struggle, so
successfully conducted, could not fail to be accompanied by a
vast increase of that kingly authority which had been on the
growth from the time of its first establishment. The
hereditary ealdormen, the representatives of the old kingly
houses, had passed away. The old tribes, or--where their
limitations had been obliterated by the tide of Danish
conquest, as was the case in central and northern England--the
new artificial divisions which had taken their place, were now
known as shires, and the very name testified that they were
regarded only as parts of a greater whole. The shire mote
still continued the tradition of the old popular assemblies.
At its head as presidents of its deliberations were the
ealdorman and the bishop, each of them owing their appointment
to the king, and it was summoned by the shire-reeve or
sheriff, himself even more directly an officer of the king,
whose business it was to see that all the royal dues were paid
within the shire. In the more general concerns of the kingdom,
the king consulted with his Witan, whose meetings were called
the Witenagemot, a body, which, at least for all ordinary
purposes, was composed not of any representatives of the
shire-motes, but of his own dependents, the ealdormen, the
bishops, and a certain number of thegns whose name, meaning
'servants', implied at least at first, that they either were
or had at one time been in some way in the employment of the
king. ... The necessities of war ... combined with the
sluggishness of the mass of the population to favour the
growth of a military force, which would leave the tillers of
the soil to their own peaceful occupations. As the conditions
which make a standing army possible on a large scale did not
yet exist, such a force must be afforded by a special class,
and that class must be composed of those who either had too
much land to till themselves, or, having no land at all, were
released from the bonds which tied the cultivator to the soil,
in other words, it must be composed of a landed aristocracy
and its dependents. In working out this change, England was
only aiming at the results which similar conditions were
producing on the Continent. But just as the homogeneousness of
the population drew even the foreign element of the church
into harmony with the established institutions, so it was with
the military aristocracy. It grouped itself round the king,
and it supplemented, instead of overthrowing, the old popular
assemblies. Two classes of men, the eorls and the gesiths, had
been marked out from their fellows at the time of the
conquest. The thegn of Edgar's day differed from both, but he
had some of the distinguishing marks of either. He was not
like the gesith, a mere personal follower of the king. He did
not, like the eorl, owe his position to his birth. Yet his
relation to the king was a close one, and he had a hold upon
the land as firm as that of the older eorl. He may, perhaps,
best be described as a gesith, who had acquired the position
of an eorl without entirely throwing off his own
characteristics. ... There can be little doubt that the change
began in the practice of granting special estates in the
folkland, or common undivided land, to special persons. At
first this land was doubtless held to be the property of the
tribe. [This is now questioned by Vinogradoff and others. See
FOLCLAND.] ... When the king rose above the tribes, he
granted it himself with the consent of his Witan. A large
portion was granted to churches and monasteries. But a large
portion went in privates estates, or book land, as it was
called, from the book or charter which conveyed them to the
king's own gesiths, or to members of his own family. The
gesith thus ceased to be a mere member of the king's military
household. He became a landowner as well, with special duties.
to perform to the king. ... He had special jurisdiction given
him over his tenants and serfs, exempting him and them from
the authority of the hundred mote, though they still remained,
except in very exceptional cases, under the authority of the
shire mote. ... Even up to the Norman conquest this change was
still going on. To the end, indeed, the old constitutional
forms were not broken down. The hundred mote was not
abandoned, where freemen enough remained to fill it. Even
where all the land of a hundred had passed under the
protection of a lord there was little outward change. ...
There was thus no actual breach of continuity in the nation.
The thegnhood pushed its roots down, as it were, amongst the
free classes. Nevertheless there was a danger of such a breach
of continuity coming about. The freemen entered more and more
largely into a condition of' dependence, and there was a great
risk lest such a condition of dependence should become a
condition of servitude. Here and there, by some extraordinary
stroke of luck, a freeman might rise to be a thegn. But the
condition of the class to which he belonged was deteriorating
every day.
{789}
The downward progress to serfdom was too easy to take, and by
large masses of the population it was already taken. Below the
increasing numbers of the serfs was to be found the lower
class of slaves, who were actually the property of their
masters. The Witenagemot was in reality a select body of
thegns, if the bishops, who held their lands in much the same
way, be regarded as thegns. In was rather an inchoate House of
Lords, than an inchoate Parliament, after our modern ideas. It
was natural that a body of men which united a great part of
the wealth with almost all the influence in the kingdom should
be possessed of high constitutional powers. The Witenagemot
elected the king, though as yet they always chose him out of
the royal family, which was held to have sprung from the god
Woden. There were even cases in which they deposed unworthy
kings."
_S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
Introduction to the Study of English History,
part 1, chapter 2, section 16-21._
ENGLAND: A. D. 975.
Accession of the West Saxon king Edward, called The Martyr.
ENGLAND: A. D. 979.
Accession of the West Saxon king Ethelred, called The Unready.
ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.
The Danish conquest.
"Then [A. D. 979] commenced one of the longest and most
disastrous reigns of the Saxon kings, with the accession of
Ethelred II., justly styled Ethelred the Unready. The Northmen
now renewed their plundering and conquering expeditions
against England; while England had a worthless waverer for her
ruler, and many of her chief men turned traitors to their king
and country. Always a laggart in open war, Ethelred tried in
1001 the cowardly and foolish policy of buying off the enemies
whom he dared not encounter. The tax called Dane-gelt was then
levied to provide 'a tribute for the Danish men on account of
the great terror which they caused.' To pay money thus was in
effect to hire the enemy to renew the war. In 1002 Ethelred
tried the still more weak and wicked measure of ridding
himself of his enemies by treacherous massacre. Great numbers
of Danes were now living in England, intermixed with the
Anglo-Saxon population. Ethelred resolved to relieve himself
from all real or supposed danger of these Scandinavian
settlers taking part with their invading kinsmen, by sending
secret orders throughout his dominions for the putting to
death of every Dane, man, woman, and child, on St. Brice's
Day, Nov. 13. This atrocious order was executed only in
Southern England, that is, in the West-Saxon territories; but
large numbers of the Danish race were murdered there while
dwelling in full security among their Saxon neighbours. ...
Among the victims was a royal Danish lady, named Gunhilde, who
was sister of Sweyn, king of Denmark, and who had married and
settled in England. ... The news of the massacre of St. Brice
soon spread over the Continent, exciting the deepest
indignation against the English and their king. Sweyn
collected in Denmark a larger fleet and army than the north
had ever before sent forth, and solemnly vowed to conquer
England or perish in the attempt. He landed on the south coast
of Devon, obtained possession of Exeter by the treachery of
its governor, and then marched through western and southern
England, marking every shire with fire, famine and slaughter;
but he was unable to take London, which was defended against
the repeated attacks of the Danes with strong courage and
patriotism, such as seemed to have died out in the rest of
Saxon England. In 1013, the wretched king Ethelred fled the
realm and sought shelter in Normandy. Sweyn was acknowledged
king in all the northern and western shires, but he died in
1014, while his vow of conquest was only partly accomplished.
The English now sent for Ethelred back from Normandy,
promising loyalty to him as their lawful king, 'provided he
would rule over them more justly than he had done before.'
Ethelred willingly promised amendment, and returned to reign
amidst strife and misery for two years more. His implacable
enemy, Sweyn, was indeed dead; but the Danish host which Sweyn
had led thither was still in England, under the command of
Sweyn's son, Canute [or Cnut], a prince equal in military
prowess to his father, and far superior to him and to all
other princes of the time in statesmanship and general
ability. Ethelred died in 1016, while the war with Canute was
yet raging. Ethelred's son, Edmund, surnamed Ironside, was
chosen king by the great council then assembled in London, but
great numbers of the Saxons made their submission to Canute.
The remarkable personal valour of Edmund, strongly aided by
the bravery of his faithful Londoners, maintained the war for
nearly a year, when Canute agreed to a compromise, by which he
and Edmund divided the land between them. But within a few
months after this, the royal Ironside died by the hand of an
assassin, and Canute obtained the whole realm of the English
race. A Danish dynasty was now [A. D. 1016] established in
England for three reigns."
_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of England,
volume 1, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_J. M. Lappenberg,
England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings,
volume 2, pages 151-233._
See, also, MALDEN, and ASSANDUN, BATTLES OF.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1016.
Accession and death of King Edmund Ironside.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1016-1042.
The Reign of the Danish kings.
"Cnut's rule was not as terrible as might have been feared. He
was perfectly unscrupulous in striking down the treacherous
and mischievous chieftains who had made a trade of Ethelred's
weakness and the country's divisions. But he was wise and
strong enough to rule, not by increasing but by allaying those
divisions. Resting his power upon his Scandinavian kingdoms
beyond the sea, upon his Danish countrymen in England, and his
Danish huscarles, or specially trained soldiers in his
service, he was able, without even the appearance of weakness,
to do what in him lay to bind Dane and Englishman together as
common instruments of his power. Fidelity counted more with
him than birth. To bring England itself into unity was beyond
his power. The device which he hit upon was operative only in
hands as strong as his own. There were to be four great earls,
deriving their name from the Danish word jarl, centralizing
the forces of government in Wessex, in Mercia, in East Anglia,
and in Northumberland. With Cnut the four were officials of
the highest class. They were there because he placed them
there. They would cease to be there if he so willed it. But it
could hardly be that it would always be so. Some day or
another, unless a great catastrophe swept away Cnut and his
creation, the earldoms would pass into territorial
sovereignties and the divisions of England would be made
evident openly."
_S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger,
Introduction to the Study of English History,
chapter 2, section 25._
{790}
"He [Canute] ruled nominally at least, a larger European
dominion than any English sovereign has ever done; and perhaps
also a more homogeneous one. No potentate of the time came
near him except the king of Germany, the emperor, with whom he
was allied as an equal. The king of the Norwegians, the Danes,
and a great part of the Swedes, was in a position to found a
Scandinavian empire with Britain annexed. Canute's division of
his dominions on his death-bed, showed that he saw this to be
impossible; Norway, for a century and a half after his strong
hand was removed, was broken up amongst an anarchical crew of
piratic and blood-thirsty princes, nor could Denmark be
regarded as likely to continue united with England. The
English nation was too much divided and demoralised to retain
hold on Scandinavia, even if the condition of the latter had
allowed it. Hence Canute determined that during his life, as
after his death, the nations should be governed on their own
principles. ... The four nations of the English,
Northumbrians, East Angles, Mercians and West Saxons, might,
each under their own national leader, obey a sovereign who was
strong enough to enforce peace amongst them. The great
earldoms of Canute's reign were perhaps a nearer approach to a
feudal division of England than anything which followed the
Norman Conquest. ... And the extent to which this creation of
the four earldoms affected the history of the next
half-century cannot be exaggerated. The certain tendency of
such an arrangement to become hereditary, and the certain
tendency of the hereditary occupation of great fiefs
ultimately to overwhelm the royal power, are well
exemplified. ... The Norman Conquest restored national unity
at a tremendous temporary sacrifice, just as the Danish
Conquest in other ways, and by a reverse process, had helped
to create it."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 7, section 77._
Canute died in 1035. He was succeeded by his two sons, Harold
Harefoot (1035-1040) and Harthacnute or Hardicanute
(1040-1042), after which the Saxon line of kings was
momentarily restored.
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 6._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1035.
Accession of Harold, son of Cnut.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1040.
Accession of Harthacnut, or Hardicanute.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1042.
Accession of Edward the Confessor.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1042-1066.
The last of the Saxon kings.
"The love which Canute had inspired by his wise and
conciliatory rule was dissipated by the bad government of his
sons, Harold and Harthacnut, who ruled in turn. After seven
years of misgovernment, or rather anarchy, England, freed from
the hated rule of Harthacnut by his death, returned to its
old line of kings, and 'all folk chose Edward [surnamed The
Confessor, son of Ethelred the Unready] to king,' as was his
right by birth. Not that he was, according to our ideas, the
direct heir, since Edward, the son of Edmund Ironside, still
lived, an exile in Hungary. But the Saxons, by choosing Edward
the Confessor, reasserted for the last time their right to
elect that one of the hereditary line who was most available.
With the reign of Edward the Confessor the Norman Conquest
really began. We have seen the connection between England and
Normandy begun by the marriage of Ethelred the Unready to Emma
the daughter of Richard the Fearless, and cemented by the
refuge offered to the English exiles in the court of the
Norman duke. Edward had long found a home there in Canute's
time. ... Brought up under Norman influence, Edward had
contracted the ideas and sympathies of his adopted home. On
his election to the English throne the French tongue became
the language of the court, Norman favourites followed in his
train, to be foisted into important offices of State and
Church, and thus inaugurate that Normanizing policy which was
to draw on the Norman Conquest. Had it not been for this,
William would never have had any claim on England." The
Normanizing policy of king Edward roused the opposition of a
strong English party, headed by the great West-Saxon Earl
Godwine, who had been lifted from an obscure origin to vast
power in England by the favor of Canute, and whose son Harold
held the earldom of East Anglia. "Edward, raised to the throne
chiefly through the influence of Godwine, shortly married his
daughter, and at first ruled England leaning on the
assistance, and almost overshadowed by the power of the great
earl." But Edward was Norman at heart and Godwine was
thoroughly English; whence quarrels were not long in arising.
They came to the crisis in 1051, by reason of a bloody tumult
at Dover, provoked by insolent conduct on the part of a train
of French visitors returning home from Edward's Court. Godwine
was commanded to punish the townsmen of Dover and refused,
whereupon the king obtained a sentence of outlawry, not only
against the earl, but against his sons. "Godwine, obliged to
bow before the united power of his enemies, was forced to fly
the land. He went to Flanders with his son Swegen, while
Harold and Leofwine went to Ireland, to be well received by
Dermot king of Leinster. Many Englishmen seem to have followed
him in his exile: for a year the foreign party was triumphant,
and the first stage of the Norman Conquest complete. It was at
this important crisis that William [Duke of Normandy], secure
at home, visited his cousin Edward. ... Friendly relations we
may be sure had existed between, the two cousins, and if, as
is not improbable, William had begun to hope that he might
some day succeed to the English throne, what more favourable
opportunity for a visit could have been found? Edward had lost
all hopes of ever having any children. ... William came, and
it would seem, gained all that he desired. For this most
probably was the date of some promise on Edward's part that
William should succeed him on his death. The whole question is
beset with difficulties. The Norman chroniclers alone mention
it, and give no dates. Edward had no right to will away his
crown, the disposition of which lay with King and Witenagemot
(or assembly of Wise Men, the grandees of the country), and
his last act was to reverse the promise, if ever given, in
favour of Harold, Godwine's son. But were it not for some such
promise, it is hard to see how William could have subsequently
made the Normans and the world believe in the sacredness of
his claim. ... William returned to Normandy; but next year
Edward was forced to change his policy." Godwine and his sons
returned to England, with a fleet at their backs; London
declared for them, and the king submitted himself to a
reconciliation.
{791}
"The party of Godwine once more ruled supreme, and no mention
was made of the gift of the crown to William. Godwine, indeed,
did not long survive his restoration, but dying the year
after, 1053, left his son Harold Earl of the West-Saxons and
the most important man in England." King Edward the Confessor
lived yet thirteen years after this time, during which period
Earl Harold grew continually in influence and conspicuous
headship of the English party. In 1062 it was Harold's
misfortune to be shipwrecked on the coast of France, and he
was made captive. Duke William of Normandy intervened in his
behalf and obtained his release; and "then, as the price of
his assistance, extorted an oath from Harold, soon to be used
against him. Harold, it is said, became his man, promised to
marry 'William's daughter Adela, to place Dover at once in
William's hands, and support his claim to the English throne
on Edward's death. By a stratagem of William's the oath was
unwittingly taken on holy relics, hidden by the duke under the
table on which Harold laid hands to swear, whereby, according
to the notions of those days, the oath was rendered more
binding." But two years later, when Edward the Confessor died,
the English Witenagemot chose Harold to be king, disregarding
Edward's promise and Harold's oath to the Duke of Normandy.
_A. H. Johnson,
The Normans in Europe,
chapters 10 and 12._
ALSO IN:
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapters 7-10._
_J. R. Green,
The Conquest of England,
chapter 10._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1066.
Election and coronation of Harold.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (spring and summer).
Preparations of Duke William to enforce his claim to the
English crown.
On receiving news of Edward's death and of Harold's acceptance
of the crown, Duke William of Normandy lost no time in
demanding from Harold the performance of the engagements to
which he had pledged himself by his oath. Harold answered that
the oath had no binding effect, by reason of the compulsion
under which it was given; that the crown of England was not
his to bestow, and that, being the chosen king, he could not
marry without consent of the Witenagemot. When the Duke had
this reply he proceeded with vigor to secure from his own
knights and barons the support he would need for the enforcing
of his rights, as he deemed them, to the sovereignty of the
English realm. A great parliament of the Norman barons was
held at Lillebonne, for the consideration of the matter. "In
this memorable meeting there was much diversity of opinion.
The Duke could not command his vassals to cross the sea; their
tenures did not compel them to such service. William could
only request their aid to fight his battles in England: many
refused to engage in this dangerous expedition, and great
debates arose. ...William, who could not restore order,
withdrew into another apartment: and, calling the barons to
him one by one, he argued and reasoned with each of these
sturdy vassals separately, and apart from the others. He
exhausted all the arts of persuasion;--their present courtesy,
he engaged, should not be tamed into a precedent, ... and the
fertile fields of England should be the recompense of their
fidelity. Upon this prospect of remuneration, the barons
assented. ... William did not confine himself to his own
subjects. All the adventurers and adventurous spirits of the
neighbouring states were invited to join his standard. ... To
all, such promises were made as should best incite them to the
enterprise--lands,--liveries,--money,--according to their
rank and degree; and the port of St. Pierre-sur-Dive was
appointed as the place where all the forces should assemble.
William had discovered four most valid reasons for the
prosecution of his offensive warfare against a neighbouring
people:--the bequest made by his cousin;--the perjury of
Harold;--the expulsion of the Normans, at the instigation, as
he alleged, of Godwin;--and, lastly, the massacre of the Danes
by Ethelred on St. Brice's Day. The alleged perjury of Harold
enabled William to obtain the sanction of the Papal See.
Alexander, the Roman Pontiff, allowed, nay, even urged him to
punish the crime, provided England, when conquered, should be
held as the fief of St. Peter. ... Hildebrand, Archdeacon of
the Church of Rome, afterwards the celebrated Pope Gregory
VII., greatly assisted by the support which he gave to the
decree. As a visible token of protection, the Pope transmitted
to William the consecrated banner, the Gonfanon of St. Peter,
and a precious ring, in which a relic of the chief of the
Apostles was enclosed."
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
volume 3, pages 300-303._
"William convinced, or seemed to convince, all men out of
England and Scandinavia that his claim to the English crown
was just and holy, and that it was a good work to help him to
assert it in arms. ... William himself doubtless thought his
own claim the better; he deluded himself as he deluded others.
But we are more concerned with William as a statesman; and if
it be statesmanship to adapt means to ends, whatever the ends
may be, if it be statesmanship to make men believe the worse
cause is the better, then no man ever showed higher
statesmanship than William showed in his great pleading before
all Western Christendom. ... Others had claimed crowns; none
had taken such pains to convince all mankind that the claim
was a good one. Such an appeal to public opinion marks on one
side a great advance."
_E. A. Freeman,
William the Conqueror,
chapter 6._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (September).
The invasion of Tostig and Harold Hardrada and their
overthrow at Stamford Bridge.
"Harold [the English king], as one of his misfortunes, had to
face two powerful armies, in distant parts of the kingdom,
almost at the same time. Rumours concerning the intentions and
preparations of the Duke of Normandy soon reached England.
During the greater part of the summer, Harold, at the head of
a large naval and military force, had been on the watch along
the English coast. But months passed away and no enemy became
visible. William, it was said, had been apprised of the
measures which had been taken to meet him. ... Many supposed
that, on various grounds, the enterprise had been abandoned.
Provisions also, for so great an army, became scarce. The men
began to disperse; and Harold, disbanding the remainder,
returned to London. But the news now came that Harold
Hardrada, king of Norway, had landed in the north, and was
ravaging the country in conjunction with Tostig, Harold's
elder brother. This event came from one of those domestic
feuds which did so much at this juncture to weaken the power
of the English.
{792}
Tostig had exercised his authority in Northumbria [as earl] in
the most arbitrary manner, and had perpetrated atrocious
crimes in furtherance of his objects. The result was an amount
of disaffection which seems to have put it out of the power of
his friends to sustain him. He had married a daughter of
Baldwin, count of Flanders, and so became brother-in-law to
the duke of Normandy. His brother Harold, as he affirmed, had
not done a brother's part towards him, and he was more
disposed, in consequence, to side with the Norman than with
the Saxon in the approaching struggle. The army with which he
now appeared consisted mostly of Norwegians and Flemings, and
their avowed object was to divide not less than half the
kingdom between them. ... [The young Mercian earls Edwin and
Morcar] summoned their forces ... to repel the invasion under
Tostig. Before Harold could reach the north, they hazarded an
engagement at a place named Fulford, on the Ouse, not far from
Bishopstoke. Their measures, however, were not wisely taken.
They were defeated with great loss. The invaders seem to have
regarded this victory as deciding the fate of that part of the
kingdom. They obtained hostages at York, and then moved to
Stamford Bridge, where they began the work of dividing the
northern parts of England between them. But in the midst of
these proceedings clouds of dust were seen in the distance.
The first thought was, that the multitude which seemed to be
approaching must be friends. But the illusion was soon at an
end. The dust raised was by the march of an army of West
Saxons under the command of Harold."
_R. Vaughan,
Revolutions of English History,
book 3, chapter 1._
"Of the details of that awful day [Sept. 25, 1066] we have no
authentic record. We have indeed a glorious description [in
the Heimskringla of Snorro Sturleson], conceived in the
highest spirit of the warlike poetry of the North; but it is a
description which, when critically examined, proves to be
hardly more worthy of belief than a battle-piece in the Iliad.
... At least we know that the long struggle of that day was
crowned by complete victory on the side of England. The
leaders of the invading host lay each man ready for all that
England had to give him, his seven feet of English ground.
There Harold of Norway, the last of the ancient Sea-Kings,
yielded up that fiery soul which had braved death in so many
forms and in so many lands. ... There Tostig, the son of
Godwine, an exile and a traitor, ended, in crime and sorrow a
life which had begun with promises not less bright than that
of his royal brother. ... The whole strength of the Northern
army was broken; a few only escaped by flight, and found means
to reach the ships at Riccall."
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 14, section. 4._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (October).
The Norman invasion and battle of Senlac or Hastings.