[Sidenote: Date of Alfred’s birth.]
§ 53. There has been a good deal of discussion as to the date of Alfred’s
birth. Asser at the beginning of his work places it in 849. And in the
annalistic portions he dates each year, not only by the Incarnation, but
by the nativity of Alfred. From 851 to 869 inclusive this latter series
(with one exception) is correctly reckoned from Asser’s own date 849;
from 870 to 876 the dates are reckoned as if from 850; from 878 to 887
they are reckoned as if from 852. In one case, the annal for 853, the
resulting year of Alfred’s nativity is 843. With this single exception
all the other errors are accounted for by the accidental repetition of
numbers, combined with the occurrence of blank annals which are not
allowed for[331]. I have shown elsewhere how the chronology of the Saxon
Chronicle is dislocated in various places by similar causes of a purely
mechanical nature[332]. It is idle to build anything on this. Sir James
Ramsay indeed seizes on the one eccentric annal 853 as giving the true
date of Alfred’s birth[333]. But, to say the least, the doctrine of
chances is strongly against this. We cannot indeed account for this date
by progressive degeneration, but it is simply one of those scribal errors
to which numerals are peculiarly liable[334].
[Sidenote: The true date is 848.]
The best authority for the date of Alfred’s birth has been generally
overlooked. This is the genealogical preface prefixed to MS. A of the
Chronicle. This is a strictly contemporary document, being drawn up
during Alfred’s reign, as is proved by the fact that, though it gives
Alfred’s accession, it does not, as in the case of all preceding kings,
give the length of his reign. According to this authority Alfred ‘took
to the kingdom when there were gone of his age three and twenty winters.’
In other words, Alfred was ‘turned’ twenty-three, as we say, at his
accession in 871. This fixes his birth to 848[335]. The place, according
to Asser, was Wantage.
[Sidenote: Alfred’s first visit to Rome. Question of the Roman unction.
Something more than confirmation implied. The consular diadem. Possibly
titular royalty conferred on him.]
§ 54. The earliest event recorded in the life of Alfred is his being sent
to Rome in 853, when he would be, according to this, five years old.
Of the fact there can be no possible doubt. It is not only mentioned
by the Chronicle and Asser; but we have the actual letter which Leo IV
wrote to Æthelwulf announcing Alfred’s safe arrival[336]. Considering
the child’s tender age, I can hardly think that the object of the
journey was educational, as is very commonly supposed; to say nothing of
the fact that Rome, at this time, had very little to offer in the way
of education, being far outstripped in this respect by the Carolingian
schools of Germany and Gaul[337]. The motive was, I think, much more
religious than intellectual. I see no reason to doubt Asser’s statement
that Alfred was, from the very first, a child of singular promise and
attractiveness[338]; and his parents, who were both conspicuous for
their piety[339], may well have wished to secure for their favourite
child[340], in his earliest years, those spiritual advantages which
were believed to attend a pilgrimage to Rome, and contact with the
visible head of the Church. The passion for pilgrimages and relics was
indeed at its height in the ninth century[341]. So far there is no
difficulty. The difficulty is as to what took place at Rome. Not only
Asser, but the Chronicle, assert that the pope ‘hallowed Alfred as king,
and took him as his bishop’s son.’ The latter phrase clearly points to
confirmation. We have seen by the case of Anaraut of North Wales, that
it was no unusual compliment for one exalted person to act as sponsor to
another at his confirmation[342], or, as in the case of Guthrum, at his
baptism. And in some cases the confirming or baptising prelate acted
also as sponsor, as we see in the case of Birinus and Cuthred of Wessex,
mentioned in the Chronicle at 639. There is therefore some plausibility
in the suggestion, that the unction which formed part of the rite of
confirmation was afterwards misinterpreted as a royal anointing. This
theory was put forward as early as the seventeenth century, as appears
by Sir John Spelman’s life of Alfred[343], and has been accepted by
many subsequent writers, myself included. I confess it fails to satisfy
me now. The statement of the Chronicle seems to me too explicit to be
lightly set aside. Dr. Liebermann indeed argues[344] that the Chronicle
cannot have been drawn up under Alfred’s influence, because of the
gross improbability of this very statement. I am inclined to turn the
argument round the other way. I think that Alfred must have understood
the ceremony to mean something more than confirmation, especially as the
two ceremonies, the hallowing as king, and the reception as ‘bishop’s
son,’ are in the Chronicle clearly distinguished. In the letter of Leo
IV alluded to above the words run thus: ‘We have affectionately received
your son Erfred … and have invested him as a spiritual son with the
girdle (or office), insignia, and robes[345] of the consulate, as is the
manner of Roman consuls.’ It is certain that Clovis wore a diadem after
receiving the consular insignia from Constantinople[346]; and in these
ceremonial matters the Papacy largely inherited the traditions of the
Byzantine Court. If then the imposition of a diadem of some kind on the
child’s head formed part of the ceremony of the consular investiture,
this would come very near to a royal coronation. I am however inclined
to go a step further in the way of suggestion. Ailred of Rievaulx
indeed, who compares the anointing of David by Samuel, supposes the pope
to have been endowed with the gift of prophecy[347]. And a spurious
charter[348] represents Alfred as making promises to the pope, as if
it was then certain that he would one day become king. But, humanly
speaking, it was of course impossible that Alfred’s succession to the
West Saxon throne should have been foreseen in 853, seeing that he had
three brothers living, all older than himself. But is it not possible
that he may titularly have held some subordinate royalty conferred on him
by his father for this very object? Athelstan, the under-king of Kent,
disappears from history after 851. Æthelberht, Alfred’s second brother,
was appointed to that under-kingdom when Æthelwulf went to Rome in
855[349]. Is it not just possible that in the interval it may have been
titularly conferred on Alfred? What emboldens me to make this suggestion
is the curiously interesting parallel of Louis the Pious, who, at the age
of three, was crowned by Pope Hadrian I in 781 as king of Aquitaine[350].
But if this be thought too bold a theory, then I should fall back on
the diadem as one of the consular insignia. When in the course of years
Alfred inherited his father’s throne, he, and others, may well have seen
in the action of him who was ‘high priest that same year,’ a prophetic
significance; just as St. John traces a higher inspiration in words[351],
which, in the intention of the speaker, simply laid down the doctrine of
political expediency in its most brutal form.
[Sidenote: Æthelwulf’s visit to Rome.]
§ 55. Two years later, in 855, Æthelwulf went to Rome himself[352]. As
early as the year of his accession, 839, he had formed the plan, and had
sent an embassy to the emperor, Louis the Pious, to prepare the way[353];
and now at last, after sixteen years, he was able to accomplish it.
How much the subject filled his thoughts seems to be indicated by the
fact that a charter of this year is dated: ‘when I set out to go beyond
the sea to Rome[354].’ He hardly left ‘composito regno’ as William of
Malmesbury states[355], for in 855 the Danes for the second time wintered
in the island[356], and a Mercian charter of this very year is dated:
‘when the Pagans were in the country of the Wrekin[357]’; though that
concerned Mercia more immediately than Wessex. Before leaving England
Æthelwulf entrusted his dominions to his two eldest sons in the way in
which they were ultimately divided at his death; Æthelbald receiving
Wessex, and Æthelberht Kent with its dependencies[358]. The spirit of
family partitions, which wrecked the Carolingian empire, threatened the
house of Wessex also. Happily the evil consequences were averted, as
we shall see[359], by the patriotic unselfishness of the two youngest
brothers, Æthelred and Alfred.
[Sidenote: He takes Alfred with him. Æthelwulf’s reception on the
Continent.]
Æthelwulf took Alfred with him on this journey to Rome. This fact is
not mentioned in the Chronicle, and rests only on the authority of
Asser[360], and those writers who have copied him. But on the whole the
statements are too precise to be set aside, and we may accept Dr. Stubbs’
decision: ‘there is no possibility that a single visit has been broken
into two[361].’ That the child returned to England after his visit in
853, and did not wait at Rome till his father came, is proved by the fact
that his signature is affixed to the charter of 855, already cited, which
Æthelwulf executed when setting out for Rome[362]: and this is better
authority than that of the two recensions of Simeon of Durham; which
however both state the fact very distinctly[363].
The continental authorities do not mention Alfred; but they tell how
honourably the emperor Charles the Bald received Æthelwulf, and escorted
him to the borders of his kingdom[364]; while the Roman historian
gives lists of the offerings which the pious monarch made at the holy
places[365]. Gregorovius indeed says that he came ‘to be anointed and
crowned by the pope[366].’ But he gives no authority, and I do not
believe that any exists. Some authorities transfer to this visit the
royal unction of Alfred[367], while another places it at Æthelwulf’s
death, January, 858[368]. But there is no reason to believe that Alfred
remained at Rome after his father left. The object of both versions is to
make the story of the unction rather more probable; but both alike are
inconsistent with the fact that Leo IV, who is always represented as the
anointing pontiff, died July 17, 855[369].
[Sidenote: State of Rome at this time. The Saracens.]
§ 56. According to the Chronicle and Asser, Æthelwulf remained a year
in Rome, and according to William of Malmesbury he restored the ‘Schola
Saxonum[370]’ or English hostelry there, which is probable enough, as
early in Leo’s reign it had suffered much from fire[371]. It is worth
while to take a glance at the state of Rome at this time. Only nine
years before, under Sergius II, a Saracen fleet had entered the Tiber
and sacked the papal suburb, though they probably did not capture Rome
itself. St. Peter’s, the centre of Western Christendom, the archive, the
museum, the treasury of five centuries of Christian devotion, became
their prey. The church of his brother apostle St. Paul, scarcely less
rich, shared a like fate[372]. The conquest of Sicily, 827-832, had
thrown down the last barrier against Islam[373]. The Mediterranean
was indeed fast becoming a Saracenic lake; and the Saracens were, as
has been well said[374], to the dwellers on its coasts very much what
the Danes and Northmen were to the dwellers on the coasts of Northern
Europe, a haunting ever-present dread, which would not let men sleep.
Some parts indeed suffered from both plagues alike[375]; and in Spain
we find Saracen and Christian combining against the Dane[376], much
as we have seen Celt and Saxon combining in England[377]. It was to
prevent a repetition of the disaster of 846 that Leo IV, with the help
of the emperor Lothair[378], built the fortifications which have ever
since given to the papal suburb the name of ‘the Leonine city.’ These
fortifications were solemnly consecrated by the pope just a year before
Alfred’s former visit, viz. on June 27, 852[379].
[Sidenote: Æthelwulf’s second marriage.]
§ 57. It was on his way home in 856 that Æthelwulf and, presumably,
Alfred also, stayed once more at the court of Charles the Bald; and
here at Verberie on October 1 the elderly Æthelwulf was married to the
emperor’s daughter Judith, a child of twelve or thirteen[380]. The
motive of this ill-assorted match is thought to have been to cement
an alliance between the two monarchs against the wikings, who were
the common foes of both. If this was its object, it was a conspicuous
failure. As far as I can read the history of the succeeding years,
whenever the wikings were defeated on the Continent they threw themselves
on England, and conversely[381]. So that the success of one kingdom
was the disaster of the other. There is no trace of any joint action
beneficial to both. And indeed Charles the Bald, a typical Frenchman in
many respects, intellectually clever, but caring only for the outward
pomp and circumstance of empire, without the strength of character to
grasp and hold the reality of power[382], was hardly the man to carry out
a consistent policy.
[Sidenote: Æthelwulf’s return. Alleged conspiracy against him.]
‘And afterwards he came home to his people, and they were fain thereof,’
says the Chronicle; using, in regard to Æthelwulf’s return, almost the
same simple and expressive words which it uses afterwards to describe
the joy of the people when Alfred emerged from his retreat at Athelney.
This seems to me to give the lie direct to Asser’s story[383]—in
itself most suspicious—that Æthelwulf on his arrival was greeted by a
conspiracy of his eldest son Æthelbald, Ealhstan, bishop of Sherborne,
and Eanwulf, ealdorman of Somerset, to exclude him from the throne, and
that Æthelwulf, sooner than allow a civil war, consented to accept
the subordinate kingdom of Kent, &c., leaving Wessex to the rebellious
son. We have seen that Æthelwulf, on his departure, had divided his
kingdoms between his two eldest sons, and it is possible that Æthelbald
was less willing than Æthelberht to resign the delegated power. The joy
at Æthelwulf’s return may point to trouble in his absence; and the same
may be hinted at where it is said of Æthelberht, that he reigned ‘in
all good quietness and peace[384].’ This cannot refer to exemption from
Danish attacks, for it was in his reign that Winchester, the capital
of Wessex, was captured[385]. One is almost tempted to think that the
writer, struck, as everyone must be struck[386], with the parallel
between Æthelwulf and Louis the Pious, wished to create an English
counterpart to the Lügenfeld, or Field of Lies, where Louis was betrayed
into the hands of his rebellious sons[387] (June 30, 833). Asser’s
quaint characterisation of an atrocious conspiracy as a ‘misfortune’
(infortunium), reminds one of Gibbon’s immortal description in the
autobiography of the gentleman who ‘was always talking about his faults,
which he called his misfortunes.’ Here, too, I seem to see traces of the
conflation of two different traditions[388], which might point to the
possibility of interpolation. But even if the story be all Asser’s own,
we must remember that he was writing at least thirty-eight years after
the event; and surely we in Oxford know that a legend may grow up in a
shorter time than that.
[Sidenote: Question of Judith’s marriage with Æthelbald.]
§58. If Judith’s marriage to her step-son Æthelbald rested only on the
authority of this early part of Asser[389], I should reject it with
equal decision; and with the same sort of inclination to regard it as
a fabricated pendant to the second marriage of Louis the Pious to her
grandmother, the elder Judith, which caused so much dissension in the
Carolingian empire[390], and was freely labelled by its opponents as
‘incestuous,’ because the parties to it were said to be within the
prohibited degrees[391]. But the marriage of Judith to Æthelbald is
vouched for by strictly contemporary continental authorities[392], one
of them being Hincmar, the prelate who blessed the ceremony of her
coronation[393], so that it is hard to set it aside. And yet it is hard
to accept it. One of the few charters of Æthelbald’s reign[394] bears
as its first three signatures, ‘Eðebald rex, Iudith regina, Swithun
episcopus.’ Did Swithun condone a flagrant case of incest, or does
‘regina’ only mean queen-dowager? Once more: is it not just possible
that the whole story may have grown out of a confusion of Æthelbald with
Eadbald, the son of Æthelberht of Kent, whose incestuous marriage with
his step-mother is mentioned by Bede[395]? The difference between Eadbald
and Æthelbald would not be very serious, especially to continental ears
and pens. Anyhow, we shall hardly acquiesce in the verdict of a later
continental chronicler: ‘nor did the king’s crime seem grievous to the
English, to whom the worship of God was much unknown[396].’
[Sidenote: Story of Alfred learning to read.]
§ 59. Apart from his signatures to charters[397], there is no mention of
Alfred in our authorities after his second return from Rome till he takes
his place upon the stage of history by the side of his brother Æthelred.
But no account of Alfred’s early years could be regarded as complete
which did not include a discussion of the famous story about his learning
to read. I venture to think that a good many unnecessary difficulties
have been made about the matter.
The common view may be expressed in the quaint words of Robert of
Gloucester’s rhyming Chronicle[398]:—
‘Clerc he was god ynow, and yut, as me telþ me,
He was more þan ten yer old, ar he couþe is a be ce.’
[Sidenote: _Illiteratus_ = ignorant of Latin.]
The original source of all this is of course the well-known passage of
Asser[399], where it is said that Alfred ‘remained illiterate’ up to his
twelfth year or more, though he learned many Saxon poems by heart. Then,
after an intervening sentence on his skill as a hunter, comes the pretty
story of the book of Saxon poems which he won by learning to read it to
his mother. Here there are several points to be noticed. In the first
place I believe that ‘illiteratus permansit’ means nothing more than that
he was ignorant of Latin. If we consider that Latin was at this time
the universal vehicle of culture in Western Europe, that ‘legere’ is
constantly used, and notably in Asser[400], of reading Latin; that all
through the Middle Ages the decision ‘legit ut clericus,’ which entitled
an accused person to benefit of clergy, meant that he could read Latin,
this interpretation will seem quite natural. Nor does the contrasted
statement that Alfred had picked up many Saxon poems by heart oblige us
to believe that he could not read his own language in his thirteenth
year. Asser is not so logical in his use of conjunctions; and besides
this, many, perhaps most, Saxon poems could be acquired in no other
way; since they only existed in oral tradition. Alfred’s thirteenth
year, according to Asser’s date for his birth, would point to 861. If we
remember that we have Alfred’s own statement that only ten years later,
at his accession in 871, there was scarcely a priest south of the Humber
who knew any Latin[401], we shall easily see that Alfred would have
little opportunity of making good the defects of his early education on
this side before he came to the throne; and the complaints which Asser
puts in his mouth, that when he had leisure to learn, he could find no
one to teach him, though rhetorical in form, are true enough in fact[402].
[Sidenote: Chronology of the incident of the poetry book.]
§ 60. Secondly, I can see nothing in the passage which obliges us to put
the incident of the poetry book in Alfred’s thirteenth year. It is true
that Asser introduces it with an ‘ergo.’ But when we have once grasped
the thoroughly aimless way in which Asser sprinkles his conjunctions
about, we shall not be inclined to lay much stress on this. And, if we
are to construe so strictly, the ‘ergo’ couples the incident, not to the
statement of Alfred’s want of literature, but to the sentence about his
skill in hunting[403]. The incident may belong therefore to any period
anterior to Alfred’s second visit to Rome in 855. This at once gets rid
of all the chronological difficulties which have been evolved from the
passage.
[Sidenote: Other misconceptions refuted.]
Nor is it necessarily implied that the reading of the poetry book was
Alfred’s first essay in reading. It is only said that he went to a master
and learnt to read that particular book. But a child would need help in
mastering a new work, even if he could read to some extent before.
Again, the suggestion of Pauli[404] and others that even in this case
Alfred was merely taught to say the poems by heart, and then repeated
them to his mother, is based simply on a piece of bad scholarship.
Because in the modern languages recitation means repeating by heart, it
does not follow that that is the meaning of the Latin word. ‘Recitare’
means ‘to read aloud’; it occurs no less than seven times in Asser, and
that is the meaning of the word in every case[405].
[Sidenote: The mother in the story is Osburh.]
Once more, the mother mentioned in the story is unquestionably Alfred’s
own mother Osburh. That he should ever have spoken to Asser of Judith,
who was only some four years older than himself, with all her doubtful
after-history, as his mother, is, as Dr. Stubbs says[406], absolutely
inconceivable.
[Sidenote: Theory of Osburh’s divorce refuted.]
Lastly, an emphatic protest must be entered against the abominable
theory put forward by Wright[407] and Lappenberg[408], and accepted by
Freeman[409], without a shred of evidence, that Æthelwulf had divorced
his noble wife Osburh—noble in character as in race—as Asser excellently
says[410], in order to marry the child Judith. The object of the theory
is to get over the supposed chronological difficulties of the incident
of the poetry book. I have tried to show that those difficulties are
imaginary. But no amount of chronological difficulties would induce me
to accept a moral impossibility like this. It would be better to give up
the story altogether. When Osburh died we do not know. Her name does not
occur in the Chronicle or in charters. If she died in 854 or 855[411],
grief for her loss may have been an additional motive for Æthelwulf to
seek the spiritual consolations associated with a visit to the holy
places.
[Sidenote: Æthelwulf’s death. Limitations of his power. Character of
Æthelwulf’s reign. Question of Æthelwulf’s will.]
§ 61. Æthelwulf did not long survive his return from the Continent,
dying about fifteen months later, January 13, 858[412]. Looking back
over his reign of eighteen and a half years we seem to see that Wessex
had hardly maintained the advance which she had made under Egbert; and
indeed in some respects that advance was probably greater in appearance
than in reality. There is no trace of any exercise of superiority on
Æthelwulf’s part in regard to Northumbria or East Anglia; and though
it is unsafe to argue absolutely from silence, especially where our
authorities are so meagre, the inference seems confirmed by the title
which Æthelwulf gives himself in one of his charters, ‘Rex Australium
populorum[413],’ a district coincident with that denoted by Asser’s
Saxonia, as explained above[414]. While a Mercian charter which makes
special provision for the entertainment of heralds (_praecones_) on their
journeys between Mercia and Northumbria, and Mercia and Wessex[415]
seems to indicate that those kingdoms existed on a footing of equality
and mutual independence. If Burgred of Mercia’s application to Æthelwulf
in 853 for help against the Welsh implies that he regarded the latter
in any way as his over-lord, it equally shows that Egbert’s reduction
of the Welsh had not been permanent. But on the whole I agree with Mr.
Green[416] that the facts of Æthelwulf’s reign do not bear out that
character of weakness commonly ascribed to him, which rests, I think,
largely on the idea that a reputation for piety is incompatible with
mental vigour. The hold of Wessex on Kent and its dependencies was not
relaxed. Egbert himself had found it expedient to conciliate local
feeling by making his son Æthelwulf under-king of these districts[417],
a system for which he could have pleaded the example of the great
Charles, with which he must have become acquainted in the days of his
exile[418]. The same system was continued at Egbert’s death, and again
at Æthelwulf’s departure for Rome, and at his death; the latter division
being prescribed, according to Asser[419], by the terms of Æthelwulf’s
will. Whether Æthelwulf really did venture to fly so much in the face of
Mr. Freeman, as to dispose of his dominions by will, cannot be certainly
known, as the will is not in existence. Anyhow, in view of the earlier
precedents, I hesitate to accept the theory of Lappenberg and Pauli, that
Æthelwulf intended definitely to sever Kent, &c., from Wessex, entailing
it on the descendants of Æthelberht, who in turn were to remain excluded
from the Wessex succession[420]. Possibly Kent was not at once ripe for
incorporation with Wessex, and the arrangement may have been justified as
a transitional measure. Happily it came to an end on Æthelbald’s death in
860; Æthelberht retained Kent on his accession to Wessex[421]; Æthelred
on this occasion, and Alfred, on the death of Æthelberht, patriotically
abstaining from pressing the claims to Kent, which they might have based
on the recent precedents. And this I take to be the residuum of fact in
Asser’s rhetorical statement[422] that Alfred might, if he liked, have
assumed the royal power during his brother’s lifetime.
[Sidenote: Reign of Æthelbald. New phase of the Danish struggle under
Æthelberht.]
§ 62. Of Æthelbald’s short reign of two and a half years nothing is
recorded in the Chronicle; Asser’s statement[423] that his government
was ‘unbridled,’ I regard as a mere flourish, based on his alleged
incestuous marriage; while Henry of Huntingdon’s pathetic sigh that ‘at
his death England realised how much she had lost[424],’ I take to be an
equally valuable piece of rhetoric on the other side. With Æthelberht’s
reign of rather over five years the Danish struggle[425] enters on a new
and more serious phase. Under him, as we have seen[426], Winchester was
taken in the year 860, and though the assailants were ultimately driven
off, a severe blow must have been struck at the prestige of Wessex by
the capture of her capital[427]. The wintering of the Danes in Thanet in
865, marks, according to Steenstrup[428], the beginning of the deliberate
and systematic attempt to conquer England. The recent incorporation of
Kent with Wessex did not prevent the Kentishmen from making a separate
agreement with the foe. The next year, 866, the Danes wintered in East
Anglia, and there too a separate peace was made, to be followed, four
years later, by the definite conquest of that land, and the death of
its martyr-king, St. Edmund. In 867 the never-ending civil discords of
Northumbria opened that country also to the invaders; and there too
a separate peace was made, and a puppet king, Egbert, was set up by
the Danes[429] in the district north of the Tyne, just as they set up
Ceolwulf, a few years later, in Mercia. Mercia’s turn was to come the
following year.
[Sidenote: Accession of Æthelred; Alfred’s public life begins.]
But meanwhile, in 866, Æthelred had succeeded his brother Æthelberht on
the throne of Wessex, and it is under Æthelred that the public life of
Alfred begins. A late authority[430] states that Æthelred was Alfred’s
favourite brother. The statement is probably a mere inference from the
record of their co-operation contained in the Chronicle and Asser; but in
itself it is likely enough.
In 868 the Danes invaded Mercia and wintered at Nottingham. Burgred, who
with his Witan had in 853 invoked Æthelwulf’s help against the Welsh, and
who that same year had married Æthelwulf’s only daughter Ealhswith, now
once more with his Witan invoked the aid of Æthelred and Alfred against
this newer and much more dangerous foe. The brothers obeyed the call,
and marched to Nottingham, but they did not venture to attack the Danish
lines, and the Mercians made peace with the invaders.
[Sidenote: Title of _secundarius_ given to Alfred by Asser. Significance
of the title. Alfred’s will.]
§ 63. It will have been noticed that the Mercian application for West
Saxon help is said to have been made to Æthelred and Alfred jointly[431];
and it is significant that it is just before this Mercian campaign that
Asser first applies to Alfred the title _secundarius_[432] alluded to in
an earlier section. This title is unique in English history. Apart from
Asser and writers who copy Asser, the only instances of the use of the
word given by Ducange are as the title of a monastic officer. And this
to some extent confirms the suggestion already made[433], that the word
is to be traced to Celtic influence; for in Irish _secnab_, literally
‘second abbot,’ is one of the regular titles of the prior of a monastery.
And I look on ‘secundarius’ as the equivalent of the Irish ‘tanist,’
the person appointed or elected during the lifetime of the chief as his
future successor[434]; and it is to be remarked that the Irish word
_tanaise_ or _tanaiste_, anglicised ‘tanist,’ actually means ‘secundus.’
The institution of tanistry existed among the Welsh[435], though I
have not come across any name for it so closely corresponding with the
meaning of ‘secundarius’ as the Irish _tanaiste_. What then I take to be
the significance of the title as applied to Alfred is this: that some
time between Æthelred’s accession in 866 and 868 a definite agreement
was come to, by which Alfred was recognised as Æthelred’s successor, to
the exclusion, for the present at any rate, of the latter’s children
(if at this time he had any); Alfred in return perhaps definitely
abandoning any claim to Kent. This theory derives some confirmation
from the very similar arrangement which was come to about this time
in regard to the private landed property belonging to the brothers. In
the preamble to Alfred’s will it is stated that Æthelwulf left certain
property to be held in common by the three brothers, Æthelbald, Æthelred,
and Alfred, the ultimate survivor to have the whole. On the death of
Æthelbald, ‘Æthelred and I,’ says Alfred, ‘gave our share in trust to
our kinsman[436], King Æthelberht, on condition that he restored it
to us [i.e. at his death] in the same state as he received it. And he
did so, not only in respect of that property which he obtained by our
concurrence, but also in respect of that which he himself acquired.’
When Æthelred succeeded, Alfred suggested in the Witan a final division
of the property. Æthelred pointed out the difficulty of division, and
promised that, if Alfred would withdraw his proposal, he (Æthelred)
would leave him not only the whole of the joint property, but also that
acquired by himself separately. To this Alfred agreed. The next clause
recites how certain modifications were made at a later time, because the
Danish troubles had brought home to the brothers that, under the original
agreement, the children of the one who died first might be left without
any provision.
[Sidenote: This will refers to private property only; not to the Crown.]
§ 64. It is to be observed in the first place that this will, and the
provisions of Æthelwulf’s will therein recited, have to do solely with
the private property of the family; there is not a word about the royal
succession. It is only in the Latin version that this is mentioned; and
that the Latin is not the original, is proved by the fact that it is full
of the most obvious mistranslations from the Saxon. Indeed, I am not
sure that the introduction of the royal succession is not the result of
a mistranslation[437]. Secondly, the inclusion of Æthelbald is rather
against the story of his rebellion; while on the other hand the omission
of Æthelberht is to be accounted for on the supposition that he had been
provided for in other clauses of the will, not here recited; for Asser
distinctly says[438] that Æthelwulf divided his private property between
his sons and his daughter. However, notwithstanding the exclusion of
Æthelberht from this particular portion of the inheritance, Æthelred and
Alfred made it over to him, on condition that at his death they should
receive, not only it, but also his separate property; in other words,
they made much the same agreement as was ultimately made between Æthelred
and Alfred.
[Sidenote: But analogous arrangements were probably made as to the
succession. These explain the title _secundarius_.]
The latter agreement was made, says Alfred, when Æthelred had succeeded;
that is, shortly after 866. It does not seem to me unreasonable to
suppose that some arrangement was made at the same time with reference
to the succession, and sanctioned in the same Witenagemót. Alfred’s
marriage took place according to Asser in 868, the very year of the
Mercian expedition. Whether at the time of the agreement about the
private property any of Æthelred’s children had been born is uncertain.
The subsequent modifications, providing for the children of the two
brothers, would seem to suggest that they had not. Anyhow they must have
been too young to be contemplated as possible successors, in the not
unlikely event of Æthelred’s falling in battle; and the danger of the
country required that there should be no uncertainty on the question of
the succession. It is by this definite recognition of Alfred as successor
that I would explain the title of ‘secundarius’ given to him by Asser. I
may add that, except as to the Celtic analogies which I have suggested,
this is practically the view of Dr. Stubbs[439], though I was not
conscious of the fact when I worked out my own theory.
[Sidenote: ‘Alfred’s Year of Battles.’ Chronology.]
§ 65. For two years Wessex had a respite. The year 869 was spent by the
invaders in Deira with their headquarters at York. In 870, as already
mentioned, they completed their conquest of East Anglia. But in the
following year the storm burst. This was indeed ‘Alfred’s Year of
Battles,’ as it is called by the late Mr. W. H. Simcox in an excellent
article on the subject, which he contributed to the second number of
the English Historical Review[440]. Here, as seven years later, the
object of the Danes seems to have been to surprise Wessex by an attack
in mid-winter. Mr. Simcox, by reckoning back the intervals between the
various engagements as given in the Chronicle from the death of Æthelred,
which is stated to have occurred ‘after Easter,’ placed the beginning of
the campaign in January. But a fact, first pointed out, as far as I know,
by Sir James Ramsay[441], enables us to fix it more precisely. Heahmund,
bishop of Sherborne, fell in the battle of Marton, the last engagement
in which Æthelred took part. So little was his warlike activity held
to derogate from his episcopal character, that his death in battle
against a heathen foe won him the title of martyr[442], and a place in
the calendar. His day is March 22, and that would almost certainly be
the day on which he fell; and this fits in well with the statement of
the Chronicle that the battle of Marton was before Easter, which fell
on April 15 in 871[443]. Reckoning backward from this we get January 22
for the English defeat at Basing, January 8 for the victory of Ashdown,
January 4 for the abortive attack on the Danish lines at Reading,
December 31 for the successful engagement at Englefield, and December 28
for the descent of the Danes on Reading. These two last dates according
to our reckoning belong to 870; but the Chronicler, who begins his year
with Christmas Day[444], is quite correct in placing them in 871.
[Sidenote: The Danes at Reading. Battle of Ashdown.]
The Danes seized Reading and fortified the tongue of land between the
Kennet and the Thames[445]; a large foraging party under two jarls was
cut up by Æthelwulf, the ealdorman of Berkshire, at Englefield, but the
main attack by the royal brothers on the Danish lines at Reading failed,
and here the victor of Englefield was slain. Gaimar gives some details as
to the route by which the defeated English made their escape, which seem
to me perfectly genuine, though I know not whence he derived them[446].
Mr. Simcox objects to them on military grounds, of which I do not profess
to be a judge. Anyhow, only four days later the English gained the
brilliant victory of Ashdown, about five-and-twenty miles further to the
west. I confess I find it difficult to fit into the Chronicler’s account
of the battle the well-known anecdote of Asser[447], which tells how
Æthelred refused to engage until the priest had finished saying mass,
though Mr. Simcox accepts it as ‘perfectly historical.’ However, if true,
Æthelred’s delay had no bad effect on the result of the battle; and
the bringing up of a fresh body of troops after the enemy had already
been disordered by Alfred’s ‘boar-like’ charge[448], may have largely
contributed to the victory. So that the cheap sneers of some writers have
not the merit of being even superficially effective.
[Sidenote: The Ashdown thorn.]
We have noticed[449] that among the objects of interest which Asser
claims to have seen with his own eyes was the solitary thorn round which
the battle of Ashdown raged. It is an interesting fact, first pointed
out to me by my friend Mr. Taylor, that among the Berkshire Hundreds
enumerated in Domesday is one called Nachededorn, i.e. Naked-thorn,
containing within itself a manor of the same name, and also the manor
of Ashdown[450]. As the name of a hundred, ‘Naked-thorn’ has perished;
and the manors which it contained are by modern arrangements distributed
among several hundreds. But it was suggested by Dr. Wilson, formerly
President of Trinity College, Oxford[451], that the name of ‘Naked-thorn’
manor probably survived in a slightly altered form in the name of
Roughthorn Farm, close to Ashdown[452]. The manor of Naked-thorn was held
by the Conqueror in demesne; that of Ashdown by Henry de Ferrers. It is
certainly, as Mr. Taylor remarks, an interesting fact that the site of
the battle of Ashdown should have been owned by the Conqueror himself.
[Sidenote: Battles of Basing and Marton. Death of Æthelred.]
From Ashdown the beaten Danes withdrew to their lines at Reading. A
fortnight later fortune turned once more, and the English were defeated
at Basing. This southward movement seems to indicate that the Danes were
striking for Winchester, the capital of Wessex[453]. The fact that they
were unable to press the attack home, shows that the English, though
defeated, were still formidable. Then for two months our authorities
are silent. The Chronicler tells us that in this year of battles there
were no less than nine general engagements[454], not counting minor
operations. But of these nine engagements only six are actually named,
Englefield, Reading, Ashdown, Basing, Marton, Wilton. It is just possible
that one or more of the unnamed battles may have taken place in the
interval. The next engagement, however, that we hear of was at a place
called by the Chronicler Meretun, which is neither Merton in Surrey,
nor Merton near Bicester, nor (as I once thought) Marden near Devizes,
but, as Mr. Simcox argues with great probability, Marton, about three
miles south of Great Bedwin in Wiltshire; and here the English, at first
victorious, had ultimately to yield possession of the field of battle,
and a month later, shortly after Easter[455], Æthelred died. Whether he
was wounded in the battle[456], or whether he was simply worn out by the
incessant strain and exposure of the last four months, he equally died
for England and the Faith, and it is difficult to read with patience
the depreciatory comments of some writers, who seem here also to assume
that piety and efficiency must be mutually exclusive qualities. But with
Alfred to succeed him, Browning’s noble words were certainly true of
Æthelred:—
‘O soldier-saint,
No work begun shall ever pause for death[457].’
[Sidenote: Alfred’s task.]
The fate of England and of Western Europe hung, humanly speaking, on the
heart and brain and arm of a young man of three-and-twenty years. That,
under God, he proved himself equal to his high task, is what has justly
earned for him the title of Great[458].