Multimedia Mania/abacus-multimedia-mania.iso/dp/0092/00927.txt

Text File | 1993-07-27 | 16KB | 247 lines

$Unique_ID{bob00927}
$Pretitle{}
$Title{History Of Europe During The Middle Ages
Notes To Book VIII: Part I}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Hallam, Henry}
$Affiliation{}
$Subject{kings
bede
bretwalda
century
et
britain
britons
history
ii
northumbrian}
$Date{}
$Log{}
Title:       History Of Europe During The Middle Ages
Book:        Book VIII: The Constitutional History Of England
Author:      Hallam, Henry

Notes To Book VIII: Part I

Note I

     These seven princes enumerated by Bede have been called Bretwaldas, and
they have, by late historians, been advanced to higher importance and to a
different kind of power than, as it appears to me, there is any sufficient
ground to bestow on them.  But as I have gone more fully into this subject in
a paper published in the 32d volume of the "Archaeologia," I shall content
myself with giving the most material parts of what will there be found.

     Bede is the original witness for the seven monarchs who before his time
had enjoyed a preponderance over the Anglo-Saxons south of the Humber: - "Qui
cunctis australibus gentis Anglorum provinciis, quae Humbrae fluvio et
contiguis ei terminis sequestrantur a Borealibus, imperarunt." (Hist. Eccl.
lib. ii. c. 5.) The four first-named had no authority over Northumbria; but
the last three being sovereigns of that kingdom, their sway would include the
whole of England.

     The Saxon Chronicle, under the reign of Egbert, says that he was the
eighth who had a dominion over Britain; using the remarkable word Bretwalda,
which is found nowhere else.  This, by its root waldan, a Saxon verb, to rule
(whence our word wield), implies a ruler of Britain or the Britons.  The
Chronicle then copies the enumeration of the other seven in Bede, with a
little abridgment.  The kings mentioned by Bede are Aelli or Ella, founder of
the kingdom of the South-Saxons, about 477; Ceaulin, of Wessex, after the
interval of nearly a century; Ethelbert, of Kent, the first Christian king;
Redwald, of East Anglia; after him three Northumbrian kings in succession,
Edwin, Oswald, Oswin.  We have, therefore, sufficient testimony that before
the middle of the seventh century four kings, from four Anglo-Saxon kingdoms,
had, at intervals of time, become superior to the rest; excepting, however,
the Northumbrians, whom Bede distinguishes, and whose subjection to a southern
prince does not appear at all probable. None, therefore, of these could well
have been called Bretwalda, or ruler of the Britons, while not even his own
countrymen were wholly under his sway.

     We now come to three Northumbrian kings, Edwin, Oswald, and Oswin, who
ruled, in Bede's language, with greater power than the preceding, over all the
inhabitants of Britain, both English and British, with the sole exception of
the men of Kent.  This he reports in another place with respect to Edwin, the
first Northumbrian convert to Christianity; whose worldly power, he says,
increased so much that, what no English sovereign had done before, he extended
his dominion to the furthest bounds of Britain, whether inhabited by English
or by Britons.  (Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. c. 9.) Dr. Lingard has pointed out a
remarkable confirmation of this testimony of Bede in a Life of St. Columba,
published by the Bollandists. He names Cuminius, a contemporary writer, as the
author of this Life; but I find that these writers give several reasons for
doubting whether it be his.  The words are as follows: - "Oswaldum regem, in
procinctu belli castra metatum, et in papilione supra pulvillum dormientem
allocutus est, et ad bellum procedere jussit.  Processit et secuta est
victoria; reversusque postea totius Britanniae imperator ordinatus a Deo, et
tota incredula gens baptizata est." (Acta Sanctorum, Jun. 23.) This passage,
on account of the uncertainty of the author's age, might not appear
sufficient.  But this anonymous Life of Columba is chiefly taken from that by
Adamnan, written about 700; and in that Life we find the important expression
about Oswald - "totius Britanniae imperator ordinatus a Deo." We have,
therefore, here probably a distinct recognition of the Saxon word Bretwalda;
for what else could answer to Emperor of Britain?  And, as far as I know, it
is the only one that exists.  It seems more likely that Adamnan refers to a
distinct title bestowed on Oswald by his subjects, than that he means to
assert as a fact that he truly ruled over all Britain. This is not very
credible, notwithstanding the language of Bede, who loves to amplify the power
of favorite monarchs.  For though it may be admitted that these Northumbrian
kings enjoyed at times a preponderance over the other Anglo-Saxon
principalities, we know that both Edwin and Oswald lost their lives in great
defeats by Penda of Mercia.  Nor were the Strathcluyd Britons in any permanent
subjection.  The name of Bretwalda, as applied to these three kings, though
not so absurd as to make it incredible that they assumed it, asserts an
untruth.

     It is, however, at all events plain from history that they obtained their
superiority by force; and we may probably believe the same of the four earlier
kings enumerated by Bede.  An elective dignity, such as is now sometimes
supposed, cannot be presumed in the absence of every semblance of evidence,
and against manifest probability.  What appearance do we find of a federal
union among the kites and crows, as Milton calls them, of the Heptarchy?  What
but the law of the strongest could have kept these rapacious and restless
warriors from tearing the vitals of their common country?  The influence of
Christianity in effecting a comparative civilization, and producing a sense of
political as well as religious unity, had not yet been felt.

     Mercia took the place of Northumberland as the leading kingdom of the
Heptarchy in the eighth century.  Even before Bede brought his Ecclesiastical
History to a close, in 731, Ethelbald of Mercia had become paramount over the
southern kingdoms; certainly more so than any of the first four who are called
by the Saxon Chronicler Bretwaldas.  "Et hae omnes provinciae caeteraeque
australes ad confinium usque Hymbrae fluminis cum suis quaeque regibus,
Merciorum regi Ethelbaldo subjectae sunt." (Hist. Eccl. v. 23.) In a charter
of Ethelbald he styles himself - "non solum Mercensium sed et universarum
provinciarum quae communi vocabulo dicuntur Suthangli divina largiente gratia
rex." (Codex Ang.-Sax. Diplom. i. 96; vide etiam 100, 107.) Offa, his
successor, retained great part of this ascendency, and in his charters
sometimes styles himself "rex Anglorum," sometimes "rex Merciorum simulque
aliarum circumquaque nationum.  (Ib. 162, 166, 167, et alibi.) It is
impossible to define the subordination of the southern kingdoms, but we cannot
reasonably imagine it to have been less than they paid in the sixth century to
Ceaulin and Ethelbert.  Yet to these potent sovereigns the Saxon Chronicle
does not give the name Bretwalda, nor a place in the list of British rulers.
It copies Bede in this passage servilely, without regard to events which had
occurred since the termination of his history.

     I am, however, inclined to believe, combining the passage Adamnan with
this less explicitly worded of the Saxon Chronicle, that the three
Northumbrian kings, having been victorious in war and paramount over the minor
kingdoms, were really designated, at least among their own subjects, by the
name Bretwalda, or ruler of Britain, and totius Britanniae imperator.  The
assumption of so pompous a title is characteristic of the vaunting tone which
continued to increase down to the Conquest.  We may, therefore, admit as
probable that Oswald of Northumbria in the seventh century, as well as his
father Edwin and his son Oswin, took the appellation of Bretwalda to indicate
the supremacy they had obtained, not only over Mercia and the other kingdoms
of their countrymen, but, by dint of successful invasions, over the
Strathcluyd Britons and the Scots beyond the Forth.  I still entertain the
greatest doubts, to say no more, whether this title was ever applied to any
but these Northumbrian kings.  It would have been manifestly ridiculous, too
ridiculous, one would think, even for Anglo-Saxon grandiloquence, to confer it
on the first four in Bede's list; and if it expressed an acknowledged
supremacy over the whole nation, why was it never assumed in the eighth
century?

     We do not derive much additional information from later historians.
Florence of Worcester, who usually copies the Saxon Chronicle, merely in this
instance transcribes the text of Bede with more exactness than that had done;
he neither repeats nor translates the word Bretwalda.  Henry of Huntingdon,
after repeating the passage in Bede, adds Egbert to the seven kings therein
mentioned, calling him "rex et monarcha totius Britanniae," doubtless as a
translation of the word Bretwalda in the Saxon Chronicle; subjoining the names
of Alfred and Edgar as ninth and tenth in the list. Egbert, he says, was
eighth of ten kings remarkable for their bravery and power (fortissimorum) who
have reigned in England.  It is strange that Edward the Elder, Athelstan, and
Edred are passed over.

     Rapin was the first who broached the theory of an elective Bretwalda,
possessing a sort of monarchical supremacy in the constitution of the
Heptarchy; something like, as he says, the dignity of stadtholder of the
Netherlands.  It was taken up in later times by Turner, Lingard, Palgrave, and
Lappenberg.  But for this there is certainly no evidence whatever; nor do I
perceive in it anything but the very reverse of probability, especially in the
earlier instances.  With what we read in Bede we may be content, confirmed as
with respect to a Northumbrian sovereign it appears to be by the Life of
Columba; and the plain history will be no more than this - that four princes
from among the southern Anglo-Saxon kingdoms at different times obtained,
probably by force, a superiority over the rest; that afterwards three
Northumbrian kings united a similar supremacy with the government of their own
dominions; and that, having been successful in reducing the Britons of the
north and also the Scots into subjection, they assumed the title of Bretwalda,
or ruler of Britain.  This title was not taken by any later kings, though some
in the eighth century were very powerful in England; nor did it attract much
attention, since we find the word only once employed by a historian, and never
in a charter.  The consequence I should draw is, that too great prominence has
been given to the appellation, and undue inferences sometimes derived from it,
by the eminent writers above mentioned.

Note II

     The reduction of all England under a single sovereign was accomplished by
Edward the Elder, who may, therefore, be reckoned the founder of our monarchy
more justly than Egbert.  The five Danish towns, as they were called,
Leicester, Lincoln, Stamford, Derby, and Nottingham, had been brought under
the obedience of his gallant sister Aethelfleda, to whom Alfred had intrusted
the viceroyalty of Mercia.  Edward himself subdued the Danes of East Anglia
and Northumberland.  In 922 "the kings of the North Welsh sought him to be
their lord." And in 924 "chose him for father and lord, the king of the Scots
and the whole nation of the Scots, and Regnald, and the son of Eadulf, and all
those who dwell in Northumberland, as well English as Danes and Northmen and
others, and also the king of the Strathcluyd Britons, and all the Strathcluyd
Britons." (Sax. Chronicle.)

     Edward died next year; of his son Aethelstan it is said that "he ruled
all the kings who were in this island; first, Howel king of West Welsh, and
Constantine king of the Scots, and Uwen king of the Gwentian.  (Silurian)
people, and Ealdrad son of Ealdalf of Bamborough, and they confirmed the peace
by pledge and by oaths at the place which is called Earnot, on the fourth of
the Ides of July; and they renounced all idolatry, and after that submitted to
him in peace." (Id. A.D. 926.)

     From this time a striking change is remarkable in the style of our kings.
Edward, of whom we have no extant charters after these great submissions of
the native princes calls himself only Angul-Saxonum rex. But in those of
Athelstan, such as are reputed genuine (for the tone is still more pompous in
some marked by Mr. Kemble with an asterisk), we meet, as early as 927, with
"totius Britanniae monarchus, rex, rector, or basileus;" "totius Britanniae
solio sublimatus;" and other phrases of insular sovereignty.  (Codex Diplom.
vol. ii. passim; vol. v. 198.) What has been attributed to the imaginary
Bretwaldas belonged truly to the kings of the tenth century.  And the
grandiloquence of their titles is sometimes almost ridiculous.  They affected
particularly that of Basileus as something more imperial than king, and less
easily understood.  Edwy and Edgar are remarkable for this pomp, which shows
itself also in the spurious charters of older kings.  But Edmund and Edred
with more truth and simplicity had generally denominated themselves "rex
Anglorum, caeterorumque in circuitu persistentium gubernator et rector."
(Codex Diplom. vol. ii. passim.) An expression which was retained sometimes by
Edgar.  And though these exceedingly pompous phrases seem to have become less
frequent in the next century, we find "totius Albionis rex," and equivalent
terms, in all the charters of Edward the Confessor. ^a

[Footnote a: "As a general rule it may be observed that before the tenth
century the proem is comparatively simple; that about that time the influence
of the Byzantine court began to be felt; and that from the latter half of that
century pedantry and absurdity struggle for the mastery." Kemble's
Introduction to vol. ii. p. x.]

     But looking from these charters, where our kings asserted what they
pleased, to the actual truth, it may be inquired whether Wales and Scotland
were really subject, and in what degree, to the self-styled Basileus at
Winchester.  This is a debatable land, which, as merely historical antiquities
are far from being the object of this work, I shall leave to national
prejudice or philosophical impartiality.  Edgar, it may be mentioned, in a
celebrated charter, dated in 964, asserts his conquest of Dublin and great
part of Ireland: - "Mihi autem concessit propitia divinitas cum Anglorum
imperio omnia regna insularum oceani cum suis ferocissimis regibus usque
Norwegiam, maximamque partem Hiberniae cum sua nobilissima civitate Dublinia
Anglorum regno subjugare; quos etiam omnes meis imperiis colla subdere, Dei
favente gratia, coegi." (Codex Diplom. ii. 404.) No historian mentions any
conquest or even expedition of this kind. Sir Francis Palgrave (ii. 258)
thinks the charter "does not contain any expression which can give rise to
suspicion; and its tenor is entirely consistent with history:" meaning, I
presume, that the silence of history is no contradiction.  Mr. Kemble,
however, marks it with an asterisk.  I will mention here that an excellent
summary of Anglo-Saxon history, from the earliest times to the Conquest, has
been drawn up by Sir. F. Palgrave, in the second volume of the Rise and
Progress of the English Commonwealth.