Chapter 1

CHAPTER 1: A HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK
INTRODUCTION

Reconstructing a political and settlement history of the East Midlands before the eleventh century is made particularly difficult for lack of the sources. Written material in this region is very sparse, much more so than for almost any other area of early England. Even the reign of a king like Offa, who ruled the whole of the Midlands by the end of the eighth century, has had to be recovered in large part from a study of land grants and other references documentary sources from outside the area (Stenton, 1918, 433-452). Even worse for our purposes, the written material that does survive is largely concerned with the kings and churchmen and is almost entirely written by ecclesiastics. This can produce its own problems with interpretation and slanting of the evidence.

Between the seventh and ninth centuries a number of significant religious centres were founded in Mercia. Places like Breedon-on-the-Hill, Leicestershire and Repton, Derbyshire were religious establishments with writing houses where the monks produced records of land transactions, lives of the saints and other chronicles. Almost all this material has now been lost (Davies, 1977, 21-24).

In the mid-tenth century a new religious movement was under way in England. This movement was towards monastic reform and revival which led to the re-vitalization of the monastic communities at centres like Breedon-on-the-Hill, Leicestershire by AD 1000. The archives of these revived abbeys help us to build a better picture by the late tenth century, not only of religious change but of landholding, local political structures, estate management and local administration. The survival of charters has allowed us to build a picture of the endowment of the abbeys, their activities and their impact within the local economy and society and has also helped to build a picture of their own concerns for the acquisition of relics.

But the lack of ecclesiastical sources in the early period and in this region is a constant problem. Even in the late tenth century what we know is still very partial. Sources were still produced by a handful of religious houses which were concentrated in only part of the region. Because of this, the concerns of churchmen will shape the questions we can ask. Saints' lives, like the early eighth century Life of St. Guthlac or the later one of Wigstan, have provided some insight into the political and religious history in the region. They are the primary evidence of the religious concerns and attitudes of their day (Stafford, 1985, 65). Even though in Anglo-Saxon England the gap between the outlook of churchmen and of nobles was often narrow, these documents give us some idea of that outlook (Wormald, 1978, 42-49).

The lack of sources from the East Midlands before the late tenth century is not a question of loss or an absence of adequate narrative sources. There were a few centres which wrote the history and annals in Anglo-Saxon England before the eleventh century and the East Midlands did not contain many of them. In the early eighth century Bede, with his Historia Ecclesiastica, created the basis for this tradition in Northumbria and annals were kept there sporadically until the mid-tenth century. In the ninth century, the royal house of Wessex instituted chronicles which form the basis of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The writing of the history of Wessex was done primarily under Alfred in the late ninth century and was continued by his children into the early tenth century. One of his children, AEthelflaed, became ruler of Mercia during this time. She was the inspiration of the only set of annals we know to have been produced within Mercia, the Mercian Register. This was a record of her military exploits and was incorporated into some manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. For the Northumbrian and West Saxon chronicles of the eighth and ninth century, the East Midlands was not very important to their concerns. They do not mention the area often and when it is mentioned, it is always from a perspective centred outside, at a foreign court or religious house. The tradition of annals or history writing probably never developed within Mercia. Because the tradition of annals writing in early England was not constant, it almost stops in the tenth century after the deaths of Alfred's children. Its revival in the early and mid-eleventh century was again mainly at centres outside the East Midlands.

With the written sources sparse and more interested in the royal dynasties, a political picture of the East Midlands is very difficult to reconstruct. The written sources provide us only with hints of settlement changes and these hints must be the starting point of our examination. The only real coverage of this area which can be used to answer these questions is the Domesday Book. This gives us a partial picture of the East Midlands at the end of the eleventh century, concentrating on dues and tenancies rather than settlement (Sawyer, 1975, 136-142) and only with very careful interpretation can any information on the Viking settlement of c.900 be obtained. It is therefore extremely doubtful whether any useful information can be gained from this source on the Anglo-Saxon settlements of the fifth or sixth centuries.

Kings dominate the sources. Even the early saints were often royal: Guthlac was a member of the Mercian royal house and Wigstan was a murdered king. The sources that we have usually centre on the royal dynasties and include their "lives", the king lists and genealogies of kings. These sources proved their claims to the throne, much like the source that survived to prove the existence of the early kingdom of Lindsey (Dumville, 1977, 90). Our picture is distorted in favour of the kings but it is even more slewed in favour of the royal houses which were successful. These dynasties tried to preserve their own memories and tried to eliminate those of their rivals. What we know is often what the successful rulers of the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries wanted us to know and what the religious houses which were closely aligned chose to record and preserve. Furthermore, the emphasis on written documentation was not very strong in the Anglo-Saxon period since they lived in a mainly oral society (Clanchy, 1979, 12-17).

There was probably a Mercian Chronicle at one time but, if so, it has now been lost. There is a set of annals, known as the Mercian Register from the tenth century, which refers mainly to the West Midlands. The Mercian Register is incorporated into the Chronicle of Florence of Worcester and into some versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. For the early period though, there is no narrative evidence from inside Mercia to give us an idea of the expansion and development of the region. No information on the origin of Mercia can be found, like those found for Wessex, Sussex and Kent in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. This is another reason why the literary evidence seems to be so small for the East Midlands (Brooks, 1989, 159).

According to the accepted scenario of the Anglo-Saxon migration and settlement, seaborne barbarian attacks forced the Romano-British to employ mercenaries from northern Germany who "first fixed their talons in the eastern part of the island" (Winterbottom, 1978, 26). They were provided with supplies by the Romano-British but then became dissatisfied and revolted against their employers. Gildas wrote his history in the mid-sixth century, during the peace that followed the revolt. The picture he paints is one of the Anglo-Saxon migrations destroying everything that was Roman. We should remember that he was a preacher using recent history to lecture about the morals of his society. He was also a geographically remote writer whose information of eastern England was very fragmentary. He may even have tailored his account to harmonize with the order of disasters and curses inflicted on the Israelites (I. Woods, pers. comm.). Both Bede and Gildas agree that eastern England was one of the earliest areas of settlement. Both of them state that the earliest stage was a settlement of mercenaries, who took over the lands of their employers. But the problems involved in using these sources and Bede's dependence on Gildas, mean that their picture must not control the archaeological record.

HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA

In his Historia Ecclesiastica, Bede stated that England had been settled by a mass migration from northern Germany. He claimed that it was the "three most formidable races of Germany: the Saxons, Angles and Jutes" who settled in Britain and described the various English people of his own period as being descended from them:

"Next from the Angles...are descended the East Angles, the Middle Angles, the Mercians, all the Northumbrian peoples...and other English people"(Giles, H.E., I, 15).

He also lists the German tribes that remained pagan in the late seventh century and this implies that he thought these were the tribes that came to Britain. The problem with this, though, is that the text is ambiguous and it was probably not Bede's intention that it should carry this meaning (Giles, H.E., V, 9; Campbell, 1982, 29-30).

The Anglo-Saxons were probably aware that they did not originally come from Britain. If Gildas preserved the early foundation myth from Saxon sources, then the basis of Bede's account was mainly "English" (Sims-Williams, 1983b, 1-30). Like their neighbours, the eighth century English wanted to secure a clear idea of their own origins. Nennius recorded foundation myths for the Britons based on the Aeneid and for the Irish based on the Bible. Both of them derived from Roman or Christian traditions which had been borrowed and converted to meet his own needs. This produced an artificial but acceptable perspective on the past. If Gildas believed that the Picts resided outside Britain in the early fifth century, then we get some sort of idea of the changing beliefs concerning the origins of another group of people (Wright, 1984). In his Historia Ecclesiastica, Bede provides the English with answers to the questions concerning their origins. He states that their ancestors were immigrants and places their arrival in the joint reign of Martian and Valentinian (around 449). Bede offers no historical information between the time of Gilda's Ambrosius Aurelianus and the coming of St. Augustine but the gap is plugged by a discussion of St. Germanus. His information concerning Hengest is not very reliable. There is no evidence that he was aware of the information which we have from southern Gaulish sources. He also states that Hengest and Horsa were their leaders and notes a stone monument recording the death of Horsa in east Kent. Later chroniclers have tended to take these English foundation myths, assign dates to them and make them into history.

Bede's main interest in writing his Historia Ecclesiastica was the Church. His history mainly covers the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons onwards. After this, his interest switches to events in his own kingdom of Northumbria. He was only interested in the history of other kingdoms when they involved the Church or Northumbria. His major source of information outside the kingdom of Northumbria came from a friend in Canterbury. We have little reason to suppose that he had any first-hand knowledge of Mercia or its origins.

The geography and chronology of Bede's account must be placed to one side. His account of the fifth century depended primarily on two works, the De Excidio of Gildas and a version of Constantius's Life of St. Germanus. To these two sources, we can add a few independent historical sources. Under the year 441, entries in the Gallic Chronicle recorded that "The provinces of Britain, which up to that time had been harassed by various disasters and accidents, are brought under the control of the Saxons" (Jones and Casey, 1988, 395-397). This information probably reached Gallia Narbonensis (where the chronicles were probably being written) from refugees leaving Britain, who were settling in Brittany and northern Spain. If this is true, then the initial settlement of parts of Britain (probably the parts near the Channel coast) by the Anglo-Saxons must have occurred by this date. So Bede's dates (derived ultimately from his reading of Gildas) are too late. It is possible to get dates for the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons from the Historia Brittonum. This results in a date in the late 420s but is only a guess. Otherwise, it is to Gildas that we (like Bede) must turn to for anything that is contemporary with the adventus Saxonum.

Lindsey was fought over by Mercia and Northumbria but was probably part of Mercia because the monks of Bardney Abby were reluctant to admit the relics of St. Oswald, King of Northumbria. They stated that "he originally came from a different province, and ruled over them as an alien king" (Giles, H.E. III, 11).

Lindsey was the scene of Paulinus's missionary activities around 628 (Giles, H.E. II, 16). Paulinus was based in Northumbria and performed his missionary activities under the protection of King Edwin. From this information it is safe to assume that Lindsey was under Northumbrian control at this date. Two other interesting points are that the first man Paulinus converted to Christianity was Blecca, the "reeve (praefectus) of the city of Lincoln" (Giles, H.E. II, 16). The other is that the name of Lincoln survived from the Romano-British period when it was a thriving town. It is interesting to note that the city and civic life survived throughout the Anglo-Saxon settlement period. During this period, the town was absorbing the Anglo-Saxons settlers because Blecca was most probably Germanic. It would also be interesting to know whether the position of "praefectus" had survived from the Roman period or whether it was a position that had been recently re-created.

The same chapter records that Paulinus baptised many people, in King Edwin's presence, in the River Trent, "near a city which the English called Tiowulfingacaestir (Littleborough)" (Giles, H.E. II, 16). The baptisms probably took place on the Lindsey side of the River Trent. This site has been identified as Littleborough in Nottinghamshire. The modern town is on the site of the Roman station of Segolocum, where the Lincoln to Doncaster road crossed the Trent River.

The first reference in Bede to a King of Mercia is the passage that states two sons were born to Quenburga, daughter of Cearl, King of Mercia, and Edwin, later to be King of Northumbria (Giles, H.E. II, 14). Cearl is not mentioned in any other source, including the genealogies of the later Mercian kings.

In 633 Edwin, King of Northumbria since 617 (Giles, H.E. II, 12), was killed at the battle of Haethfelth (Giles, H.E. II, 20), during the rebellion of Caedwalla, King of the Britons.

"He (Caedwalla) was supported by Penda, a great warrior of the royal house of the Mercians, who from that time ruled that nation for twenty two years, with varying success" (Giles, H.E. II, 20).

This is the first time that Penda's name is mentioned in Bede's history and he was fighting against the Northumbrians in an alliance with the Britons (Giles, H.E. II, 20).

It seems probable that Penda's strength came from the territory of the Hwicce. If this is true, then the alliance between the Britons and the Mercians was of benefit to both since it drew Penda's interest away from Wales and strengthened his power base at the same time. Bede does not give him the title of king in 633 but recognises that after this time, Penda was King of Mercia and counts his years as king from then.

Figure 1 Place-names in the Historia Ecclesiastica from D. Hill, 1981.

We seem to be seeing here the establishment of what was later the central Mercian authority as the result of this successful campaign against Edwin.

Penda's expansion continued. In the story of the conversion of Sigebert of Essex we can see that a small state, Essex, was seeking protection from a larger state, Northumbria, against the expansion of Mercia (Giles, H.E. III, 22). Anna was killed by Penda in 654 and after his death, East Anglia was subjected to Mercia. This might explain why AEthelhere, King of East Anglia, was in Penda's army at the Winwaed and had the title of "provincial ruler". Bede does not mention the conquest of the Hwicce or the Middle Angles by Penda but does refer to the fact that Penda made his son Peada "sub-king" of the Middle Angles (Giles, H.E. III, 21). Penda also exiled Cenwalh from Wessex because he had chosen another woman even though he was married to the sister of Penda (Giles, H.E. III, 7).

During the first twenty two years of the existence of Mercia, Penda expanded his kingdom as far as he could with the resources he had available. We can see that he was recognised by the other Anglo-Saxon rulers because of the marriage contracts he had with them. His sister, who is not named, was married to Cenwalh, son of Cynegilis, King of Wessex. His eldest son Peada married Alchfleda, daughter of Oswy of Northumbria and Alchfred, son of Oswy and ally of Penda, married Penda's daughter Cyneberga (Giles, H.E. III, 7; Giles, H.E. III, 21).

Anglo-Saxon kingship was a very personal affair, and after Penda's death Mercia collapsed. Bede records that Oswy ruled Mercia and the Southern provinces for three years, from 655 to 658, following the death of Penda (Giles, H.E. III, 24). Oswy granted Peada, his son-in-law, the "the kingdom of Southern Mercia" to rule over. This is probably the Mercian land south of the River Trent and included the land of the Middle Angles, which Peada held from his father. It is unlikely, however, to have included all the tributary provinces of Mercia south of the River Trent because the tributary provinces were the base of Mercian control and Oswy would not have had enough control without it. Peada was murdered the next Easter by his wife Alchfleda (Giles, H.E. III, 24).

During Oswy's rule, the conversion of Mercia continued. He appointed Diuma, Ceollach and Trumhere as bishops in the province of Mercia, Lindsey and Middle Anglia (Giles, H.E. III, 24).

The Mercians then reasserted their sovereignty under three ealdormen (Immin, Eafa, and Eadberct). They rebelled and rejected Oswy's ealdormen and put Wulfhere, son of Peada, on the throne (Giles, H.E. III, 24). It seems that Oswy's rule was not as strong as Bede believed. This is because there was a group of Mercians with a Mercian aetheling as their figurehead which was well organised and strong enough in three years to oust Oswy.

Bede does not mention the reigns of the kings after Penda because Mercia had little interaction with Northumbria. He does discuss Mercia but it is usually connected with the history of the Church. It seems that Wulfhere was successful because Sighere and Sebbi, who succeeded Suidhelm as king of the East Saxons, were subjected to him (Giles, H.E. III, 30).

Wulfhere held on to the three provinces (Mercia, Lindsey and the Middle Angles) that owed allegiance to Penda and appointed Wynfrid as bishop to all three (Giles, H.E. IV, 3). However, after about 670, Wynfrid was unable to maintain his position because Egfrid of Northumbria appointed Eadhed bishop of Lindsey, a province in "which Egfrid had very recently annexed, after defeating Wulfhere in battle, and putting him to flight" (Giles, H.E. IV, 12): Wulfhere's position in Mercia was very weak at the end of his reign.

The last forty years of the Historia Ecclesiastica appear to be condensed. The only significant things that can be taken from it is Coinred's accession to the throne (Giles, H.E. V, 13), his abdication of the throne after a successful reign and his journey to Rome to become a monk (Giles, H.E. V, 19). It also records the accession of Ceolred, the son of AEthelred, in 709. The chronological table at the end adds that in 697, Queen Osthryth was killed by her own people and that in 704, AEthelred became a monk after thirty one years as King of Mercia. It also records that in 716 Ceolred, King of Mercia, died (Giles, H.E. V, 24).

The writer that continued Bede's work gives little information on the reign of AEthelbald. He records that AEthelbald laid waste to Northumbria in 740, that Cuthred, King of Wessex, rebelled against his overlordship in 750 and that in 757 AEthelbald was murdered by his own guards during the night. After his death, Beornred, tried to rule Mercia but was quickly deposed by Offa.

THE ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was primarily a West Saxon document in origin and the earlier annals that were used to write it were West Saxon except for the Northern Recension which came from early Northumbrian annals. It also used Bede as a source because we can see from a comparison of the annals for 449 and Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica I 15 that they are very nearly identical. The compilers of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, like Bede, seemed to have been uninterested in affairs outside their own kingdom and because of this, they tried to conceal the success of Mercia, especially its successes at the expense of Wessex. The compilers of the Chronicle did not discriminate as Bede did but they did not confirm their information or select the material very well. Because of this, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is not a very reliable source for historians. Legends and myths are placed with actual facts and it becomes difficult to separate the two. The Chronicle has also been used by later copyists to further their own interests, such as the monks of Peterborough using the Laud text of the Chronicle to strengthen their claim to lands that were granted to the monastery of Medeshamstede by Wulfhere and AEthelred. This version of the Chronicle was copied at Peterborough in 1120-21 under the years 656 and 675.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle contained quite a bit of information that was taken directly from Bede's history. It also contains some West Saxon annals and these entries give us additional information on Southern England, Kent, Sussex and Wessex. This is because it preserved the legends of the conquest of England but has nothing about Mercia. After this, in the seventh and eighth centuries, the Chronicle contains little information on any kingdom except the accession and death of the kings and the major battles fought.

Figure 2 Place-names in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicl from D. Hill, 1981.

There are no Mercian kings named among the Bretwaldas, who ruled as overlords over other kingdoms as well as their own, in the entry for 827 (John, 1966, 7). Some of these statements conflict with other evidence we have, such as when the Mercians were victorious over the West Saxons. An example of this is in 628 when, at the battle of Cirencester, it is reported that they came to an "agreement". In fact, Mercia gained the Severn Valley, which was the territory of the Hwicce, as a result of this battle. This victory over the West Saxons helped to establish Penda as King of Mercia. There is no comment as to the outcome of the battle between Ceolred and Ine in 715 and in 741 Cuthred, the King of Wessex, fought against AEthelbald but in 743 they were fighting on the same side against the Britons. The internal affairs of the Mercians are recorded briefly and even then they are usually not accurate.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle survives in two main texts: the Parker text and the Laud text, both of which were written from one main source. The Northern Recension, which is part of the Laud text, was enlarged for this period by some passages from Bede's history and from a Northumbrian Gesta. There is a greater divergence between the different versions of the Chronicle after 892 but this is not important for this thesis.

The Parker text was apparently written at Winchester and was sent to Christchurch, Canterbury at about 1001. It was there that some local annals were added to it. The Laud text is based on the Northern Recension which was written in York under the supervision of Archbishop Wulfstan. In 1121, the manuscript was copied in Peterborough, where a large number of additions were made.

The Laud text records some details of the battle of Hadfelda in 633 and Maserfelth in 641 and both versions include Cenwalh's eviction by Penda in 644 (Ingram, A.S.C. 644). For the entries of 655 to 658, there is a complete split from Bede which is interesting considering his observations are very detailed. The West Saxon annals seem to be misinformed about the Mercian internal affairs at this time. The Parker text records that in 655 Penda died and the Mercians became Christians and the Laud text gives a little better picture but records it under 654. Both texts record that Peada succeeded to the kingdom of Mercia in 655 (Ingram, A.S.C. 655) and according to the Parker text in 657, Peada died, while the Laud text states that Peada was killed in 656. Both texts state that Wulfhere succeeded him but the chroniclers completely left out the Northumbrian domination of Mercia and the rebellion of the Mercian lords in favour of Wulfhere in 658. The fact that the original Chronicle did not use Bede's observations is interesting because it was available to the original chroniclers as well as those who adapted the chronicle in the North. Bede may have exaggerated Oswy's power but it is unlikely that he would deliberately make such a drastic change to the facts. The copy of the Laud text by the Peterborough copyist includes the only Chronicle mention of the fourth son of Penda, Merewala. It seems that Merewala, who with his other siblings, advised Wulfhere on the endowment to the monastery of Medeshamstede.

The first record of Penda in the Chronicle is earlier than that of Bede. The entry for 626 records his accession in that year but if this is true, then his reign was thirty years and in 626 he was fifty and this should be remembered in view of all of his achievements (Ingram, A.S.C. 626). The Chronicle's date of Penda's accession to 626 alters the length of his reign and this contradicts Bede who is more accepted. It is possible that the West Saxons dated Penda's reign earlier because of his victory over Cynegils and Cwichelm at the battle of Cirencester. This would make the defeat less shameful to the writers. Penda's genealogy, which places him on the same level as other Anglo-Saxon kings by tracing his descent from Woden, follows the annals for 626.

This genealogy is very difficult to follow. Chadwick has accepted the historical existence of Icel and his position as the probable founder of the Mercian royal family (Chadwick, 1907, 144) and Stenton has said that there is little reason to doubt the historical basis on which the genealogy is based (Stenton, 1971, 39). Stenton also claims that the power of the Mercian kings is due to their distinguished descent but this is difficult to understand because if this is true then the Mercian royal family would have emerged earlier. His statement also presupposes that there was an organised conquest of England by warrior-kings. Sisam doubts this and states that the common descent of all important Anglo-Saxon kings from Woden and the equal number of generations of descent looks artificial (Sisam, 1953, 39). Wallace-Hadrill doubts the accuracy of Germanic genealogies in general (Wallace-Hadrill, 1962, 20).

The Mercian genealogy is also confusing because of the earlier existence of Cearl, who is omitted from it. If it is a genealogy and not a king list, then why was Penda not descended from Cearl? If there was some mention of their relationship this might have clarified it for historians. The link with the earlier continental Offa is also open to discussion since this could have been inserted into the list to establish Penda's claim to the kingship or it might also have been done to reinforce his claim based on power and personality. Another possibility is that it may have been a later, eighth century insertion to flatter Offa of Mercia.

Sisam has suggested that the whole idea of the genealogies is foreign to the Germanic peoples and that it is a result of Roman or Celtic influences (Sisam, 1953, 39). Wallace-Hadrill supports this theory by stating that the Germanic kings owed their power primarily to their wealth and exercised their power only while they were wealthy (Wallace-Hadrill, 1962, 4).

For Wulfhere, the Chronicle has information about his wars against the West Saxons. In 661, Cenwalh fought against Wulfhere at Posentesburh and the Chronicle records Wulfhere's ravaging as far south as Ashdown. It also records Wulfhere's ravaging in the Isle of Wight. This was obviously a successful campaign because he gave the island to Ethelwalh when he converted to Christianity (Ingram, A.S.C. 661). If the identification of Posentesburh is correct, then it seems that Wulfhere may have been taking advantage of Cenwalh's interest in western Wessex to raid eastern Wessex during his absence (Hoskins, 1960). In 675, Wulfhere fought against AEscwine, who was King of Wessex in 674, at Biedanheafde. No outcome of the battle is recorded but Wulfhere died later that year and AEthelred became King of Mercia (Ingram, A.S.C. 675).

AEthelred, like Wulfhere, concentrated on strengthening his southern frontier more than his northern frontier. This was because of the growing power of Wessex in Southern England and also, the Northumbrians attention was turned to the Picts on their northern boundary. The Parker text records that in 676, "AEthelred, King of Mercia, ravaged Kent" (Ingram, A.S.C. 676). The Laud text adds to the next record of Mercian activity because all that the Parker text records is that during that year AElfwin is killed. The next two references occur only in the Laud text and must have come from a northern source. These are:

"697. This year the Southumbrians slew Ostritha, the queen of Ethelred, the sister of Everth" (Ingram, A.S.C. 697).

"702. This year Kenred assumed the government of the Southumbrians" (Ingram, A.S.C. 702).

This seems to be the only recorded use of the term Southumbrians in place of the common term Mercians in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. It would be interesting to know where this term came from and since Bede does not use it, it must come from some other source, most probably some annals.

In 704, AEthelred became a monk and Coenred became king. Coenred abdicated in 709 and went to Rome with Offa of Essex where he later died. Coelred succeeded him but only ruled for a short time before dying in 716 and AEthelred died that year in the monastery at Bardney. AEthelbald, who ruled for forty one years, became king.

Forty one years is a long time to reign over a kingdom which suggests that he had a very successful kingship. It also suggests that a king must have a strong and forceful personality to have a long reign. In 733, AEthelbald captured Somerton from the West Saxons and in 737, he harassed Northumbria. In 740 Cuthred, King of Wessex, fought against AEthelbald but in 743, AEthelbald and Cuthred fought together against the Welsh. This, taken with the Synod of Cloveshoh in 742 which was under the direction of AEthelbald shows us that Bede is correct when he states that all England south of the River Humber was under the control of AEthelbald.

In 752, Cuthred again fought against AEthelbald at Beorgfeord and put him to flight. The rebellion was recorded by the writer who continued Bede's work and it seems that this was part of the same war. The defeat at Beorgfeord was possibly significant in the decline of AEthelbald's strength. It could also be that this event was what caused his murder at Seckington in 755 (Ingram, A.S.C. 755). Beornred succeeded him and was then defeated by Offa in battle that same year (Ingram, A.S.C. 755).

This is the information on Mercia that is given by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. There is very little general evidence to add to it. The conversion of the Middle Angles and later of the Mercians is recorded briefly when their kings were converted by the missionaries. The Laud text gives a description of the foundation and endowment of the monastery of Medestamstede and details the endowments of Wulfhere and AEthelred (Ingram, A.S.C. 656; Ingram, A.S.C. 675). The Church Councils of Hereford and Hatfield are recorded but no details are given (Ingram, A.S.C. 673; Ingram, A.S.C. 680). The consecrations of some of the bishops of Mercia are treated the same way (Ingram, A.S.C. 664; Ingram, A.S.C. 675).

DE EXCIDIO

Gildas's De Excidio is undated except for a reference to the siege of Badon Hill 43 years and one month before it was written. This event is not dated accurately and the only reference to it is in the Annales Cambriae under the year 516. Modern scholars have tended to place the writing of this source to the second quarter of the sixth century or very soon thereafter, although a date as early as 500 is possible (Sims-Williams, 1983a, 15; Dumville, 1984b). Gildas received a traditional Roman education and this might place his youth as early as possible after the end of Roman government in Britain. If this is true, then it would pull the date of composition towards around 490-510. It is clear from his own account that Gildas was not a contemporary of the adventus, even though his childhood may have coincided with the tail-end of the struggle against the Saxons after Mons Badonicus. The death of Maelgwn (Meglocunus) in the late 540s, however, suggests a rather later date, c.540, for the composition.

The purpose, date and reliability of Gildas have been much discussed in recent years, and is now the subject of a recent book by N. Higham (I have not been able to consult this work). For our purposes, however, little in Gildas is immediately relevant, since he devotes no attention to Eastern Mercia. His work, nevertheless, is helpful in providing a general and hazy background-revolt, fire and slaughter-which has long formed part of the stock-in-trade of writers on the transition to Anglo-Saxon England.

The Anglo-Saxons were ideal mercenaries to defend Britain against raiders. They came with their own arms and were already trained in their use. As Emperor Julian discovered in Gaul, regular Roman soldiers were not effective in dealing with rural raiding parties (Zosimus, III, 7). The Anglo-Saxons had a formidable reputation:

"The Saxons, a tribe living on the shores of the Ocean in inaccessible swamps and dreaded for their bravery and rapidity of movement, undertook a dangerous raid in full force against the Roman possessions, but they were crushed by Valentinian in the land of the Franks" (Raymond, 1932, Orosius, Seven Books Against the Pagans, VII, 32).

The revolt of these troops was always possible because as mercenary soldiers, they were in competition with the local aristocracy and the Church for a share of the agricultural surplus but their shares were determined by their competitors. They then took advantage of the lack of Roman military control to replace their employers as controllers of the land and the tax revenues. The widely dispersed estate systems were very vulnerable to this type of take over. Again, Continental examples are documented. At about this time, Sidonius Apollinaris was not able to secure his two-thirds of an inheritance from his mother-in-law because a Visigoth had taken control of it (Stevens, 1933, 163). The control of the estates by the Anglo-Saxons in eastern England presumably meant the loss of the estates and their tax revenues to the lowland British aristocracy.

FLORENCE OF WORCESTER

Florence of Worcester adds information that is not found in these three major sources. Some of this evidence is probably from the West Midlands, for example, on the death of Wulfhere in 675 some details are given about his family. It records that his East Saxon wife and daughter were canonised and that Wulfhere's brothers, including Merewald "who ruled the western part of Mercia", Merewald's queen, three daughters, all canonised and his one son, Merefin, who was "a youth of eminent piety" (Forester, 1854, 25).

Florence of Worcester adds to Bede's statement of the appointment of Eadhed, the first bishop of Lindsey, by Eathaed. It also records that in 681, Eadhed "returned from Lindsey because King AEthelred had recovered possession of that province" (Forester, 1854, 28). It records the Synod of Hatfield in 680 and adds that later that year "the province of Mercia was divided into five dioceses" (Forester, 1854, 27). On AEthelbald's accession in 716, Florence of Worcester outlines AEthelbald's relationship to previous kings and states that AEthelbald was the son of Alwine.

OTHER SOURCES

Two other sources which are used by historians are Henry of Huntingdon's Historia Anglorum and the two Flores Historiarum of Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris (Coxe, 1841-4; Arnold, 1879; Luard, 1890). Henry of Huntingdon began his work at the request of Alexander, bishop of Lincoln. It first ended at 1129 but was later extended to 1154. Roger of Wendover was writing at St. Albans and ends his chronicle in 1234 but it too was later extended to 1235. Matthew Paris, also writing at St. Albans, produced a Flores which ended at 1249. The relationship between the two Flores is difficult to understand. Roger, who wrote his first, used a variety of sources to 1212/14 and then became independent. Matthew's more famous work, Chronica Majora, followed Roger's to 1236. Matthew's Flores was based on his own Chronica but he corrected some errors he found in Roger's Flores and in his own Chronica. In his second work, Matthew was using Roger's sources as well as Roger's own work (Vaughan, 1958, 34).

It is clear that Henry, both Flores and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are independent in their treatment of the late sixth and early seventh centuries (Whitelock, Douglas and Tucker, 1961, XIX). Henry used A.D. dates but usually used the imperial years before 449 and between 449 and 519. His regnal years cannot be deduced from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle's dates since they vary. Much of Henry's actual content is identical to that of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle but the order of events separates in the late sixth and early seventh centuries. Although there is no doubt the Henry used at least one text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, his late sixth century material cannot be taken from any version of it.

Both Henry and the Flores contain English material which is not found in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and it is clear that Henry is not dependent upon the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for his early English material. The Flores were not dependent on either of them and were drawing upon sources which have now been lost. The relationship between the two Flores implies the existence of these sources at St. Albans in the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Although the Flores have more English material than Henry, both Flores and Henry have a series of entries for the sixth century which discuss Mercia, East Anglia and Essex. These entries are in all three texts, occur in the same order in all three and in some cases there are close verbal connections. For 527, for example, Henry states "...at the same time many came and often from Germany, and occupied East Anglia and Mercia: but those territories had not yet been brought under one king. But many princes emulously occupied the regions, from where innumerable wars occurred: but the princes, because they were numerable, lack a name" and the Flores have "...In the same year, pagans came from Germany and occupied East Anglia, that is that region which is called the region of the East Anglians, of whom some, invading Mercia, waged various wars with the Britons but since their princes were numerous, they lack a name". This is possible but since the close correspondence between Henry and both Flores is confined to the sixth century and seems unlikely that such a chronicle was available to all three writers. In summary, we can conclude that Henry and the two Flores are not interdependent but that all three sources had access to a common source containing midland and eastern material about the sixth century and to unsynchronized collections of annals of the mid ninth century or earlier.

The information is consistent even though it comes from different sources. The Mercian royal family of the early eighth century was known as the Iclingas or descendants of Icel. Icel occurs in the early stages of the Mercian genealogy and Chadwick pointed out that there was a strong suggestion in the term Iclingas that Icel was a leader during the migration (Chadwick, 1907, 15). Those members of the genealogy who come before Icel are only found in Continental contexts and those who come after are in Insular ones (Chadwick, 1907, 15). There are a few examples of this in the distribution of material culture but only if the distribution patterns reflect movement of people. Myres has pointed out that Buckelurnen with feet started in East Anglia and then spread through Middle Anglia towards the South West in the late fifth century (Myres, 1969, 102). Many critics accept the correlation but query the date, and ascribe this expansion to the early sixth century (Morris, 1974, 225-232).

The material that has been discussed so far comes from a couple of entries on a Victorian table and from a Mercian regnal list which have been put together early in the Anglo-Saxon period. Since the earlier sixth century dates are common in Henry and both Flores it is possible that the material had already been compiled with other material and the chroniclers were not referring to the original sources. It is impossible to date the compilation but the tradition that the Mercian kingdom began with Crida is at least as old as the late ninth century. This material suggests that the settlement of Mercia came from East Anglia or from a migration which also produced settlement in East Anglia in the early sixth century and that the family which became the Mercian royal dynasty took part in that migration. Also, the material provides evidence that the kings of Mercia started with Crida around 585 and a starting date for the kingdom of Mercia before Penda.

The Flores use A.D. dates but the actual dates and are often a little different than those from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The Flores records that Cerdic and Cynric arrived in 494 and Port in 501. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has 495 and 501. These dates are also different from those of Henry and cannot be taken from his work or any versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. This might mean that the annals they were using for the sixth and seventh centuries information were a collection made before the accretion of the adventus.

LIFE OF ST. GUTHLAC

Other literary evidence comes from the lives and letters of the saints. The Life of St. Guthlac states that the fens of Britain was uninhabited for a short time after the Roman withdrawal because of the failure to maintain the dykes. This area is described as a very wild and remote place and was presumably a "no man's land" (Colgrave, 1956, 87-89).

The life of Guthlac was that of a young nobleman. He was leader of a small war band and was fighting against the Welsh but there was a formal peace during his youth so this war band may have been in fact a raiding band. The inspiration for this period of his life was the heroic legends and the feats of dead heroes (Colgrave, 1956, 3). This was followed by his conversion to Christianity and becoming a monk which was probably inspired by the Christian legends of the saints (Colgrave, 1956, 4).

The Life of St. Guthlac provides us with some information on the fighting between Mercia and the Britons at the time of Coenred (Colgrave, 1956, 109). It shows us that the accession to the throne was not always peaceful and unchallenged in Mercia even though there was only one royal family. The earlier conflicts in Northumbria resulted from the duality of the two provinces, each with its own royal family. AEthelbald, who was in exile during the reign of Coelred, had to be constantly on the move because his royal blood made him a rival for the throne and rivals to the throne were too dangerous to be free (Colgrave, 1956, 16).

LIFE OF ST. WILFRID

The Life of St. Wilfrid, which was written by Eddius Stephanus, contains pieces of information on Mercia, since Wilfrid had spent time there during his exile. It provides us with evidence for the battle between Wulfhere and Ecgfrith which is not recorded in Bede's history (Webb, 1965, 153). Wulfhere, who is described as a proud man, was determined to rule over the Northumbrians. He stirred up all the tribes of Southern England, of which he was probably overlord, against the Northumbrians but they were defeated and Northumbria put Mercia under tribute. This battle occurred very shortly before Wulfhere's death and the tribute cannot have been levied more than once because AEthelred restored Mercia to its previous position in England.

LETTER OF ST. BONIFACE

The Letters of St. Boniface, an Anglo-Saxon who was a missionary in Germany, goes a little deeper into the period and provides us with some addition information on Ceolred and AEthelbald. Ceolred turned against the Church, annulled its privileges and looted it for its property. One letter, which is dated 716, describes a vision in which a monk saw an angel giving Ceolred to demons as a punishment for his actions (Emerton, 1940, 30). There is a reference to this in Boniface's letter to AEthelbald. AEthelbald was himself a royal tyrant and had a mixed reputation (Emerton, 1940, 129).

There is some information of how the localities were governed in records. One record states that Berntwald, a nephew of AEthelred, was a sheriff and was protecting Wilfrid (Webb, 1965, 172). This is the same as Penda's use of Peada and Wulfhere's use of Merewald as sub-kings of the provinces of Mercia. It is possible that members of the royal family were involved in government in an attempt to reduce their threat to the ruler by keeping them busy.

CHARTERS

A few charters survive from this period, some in their original form, but the majority are copies made into monastery and cathedral cartularies (John, 1960, 175-176; Finberg, 1961, 9-23; Hart, 1966, 9-12; John, 1966, 181-209; Sawyer, 1968, vii-viii). Many of them are forgeries, especially those from the monasteries of eastern England. Many of them were destroyed with other documents during the Danish invasions of the ninth and tenth centuries while others were destroyed in later fires.

The charters from Western England which were not affected by the invasions, are a more reliable source. Examination of these charters with modern research has resulted in a classification. Finberg and Hart have arranged them according to degrees of reliability based on previous statements and on their own work (Finberg, 1961, 9-23; Hart, 1966, 9-12). Sawyer included in his classification the most important comments on the authenticity of the charters (Sawyer, 1968, x). Only a few of the original charters remain which makes it very difficult to get evidence from them. The wording of the titles may have been copied wrongly, and the charter itself may be altered or forged.

Grants by charter to the Church was not very popular at first. As Christianity spread and more people wished to embrace the religion permanently to gain salvation, the practice of grants by charter increased. Grants were usually of land which was the most durable form of endowment. Laymen started to receive more and more grants of land by charter and it is here that historians find the evidence for the existence of the comitatus of heroic legend because many charters declare the person as "my companion" (Birch, 1885-1893, 146).

Figure 3 Charter Bounds from D. Hill, 1981.

One charter records an exchange of land, which was given by the king as a permanent grant (Birch, 1885-1893, 137). Eric John thinks that the land was only temporarily held for the lifetime of the person and then went back to the crown upon his death (John, 1960, 48-49). It is possible that this charter was the only one of its kind. If this is true, then we may be able to understand how Anglo-Saxon kings rewarded their followers. By giving this land to his warriors who fought for him, he provided their families with a place to live, food to eat and ensured that they stayed loyal to him. These grants probably also financed the local government by providing for officials.

Land that was given by book was hereditary and the family was no longer dependent on the king for their maintenance. The extension of the land given by book to include laymen can be connected to the process by which the "gesith" was succeeded by the "thegn" and the "thegn" differentiated into "thegns" and "King's thegns". They became independent of the king and closer to landed gentry and local officials than that of a barbarian king's dependent comitatus.

Figure 4 Estates mentioned in Charters from D. Hill, 1981.

It has been suggested that grants of "bookland" may have been used to weaken families of royal status and to make them poorer. An example of this is the Hwiccian royal family since it seems that the bishopric of Worcester may have increased its wealth at the expense of the royal family (John, 1966, 89).

The geographical area that is covered by the grants is interesting to look at because it shows the extent of power held by individual kings. Few of the charters can be dated precisely so that the full extent of their power cannot be established from charter evidence alone. Sometimes the grant itself shows the extent of this power, such as AEthelbald's grant of land in Wiltshire to Abbot Eanberht in a charter which was attested to by Cynulf, King of Wessex (Birch, 1885-1893, 58) as well as other grants of land in Wiltshire and Berkshire, which were outside Mercia and inside Wessex (Birch, 1885-1893, 155 and 181).

The more important charters are those made by other kings and requiring the consent of the kings of Mercia to make them valid. Besides those from the Hwicce these include a confirmation of a charter by sub-king Ecgwild, whose seal needed to be supported by AEthelred's (Birch, 1885-1893, 50). Also, charters by Swaefheard, King of Kent, were confirmed by AEthelred (Birch, 1885-1893, 42) and those of Swaefred of Essex were confirmed by Ceonred and Ceolred (Birch, 1885-1893, 111). An idea of the authority outside Mercia can be found in AEthelbald's charter to the Churches in Kent, confirming their privileges (Birch, 1885-1893, 162) and his grant of land at "Cadenan ac" and was witnessed by Osthryth and Saxwulf at the king's own "vicus" at Tomtun (Tamworth) (Birch, 1885-1893, 843).

The title regularly given to the kings of Mercia in charters was "Rex Merciorum" (King of Mercia) with many different phrases detailing their divine position (Birch, 1885-1893, 22). AEthelbald, at the height of his power, appears in charters as "AEtdilbalt Rex Britanniae" (Birch, 1885-1893, 154). Since the grantee was responsible for drawing up the charters, there was usually a variation to the title but this title shows that AEthelbald had greater power than that of "Rex Merciorum". It is also apparent that the presenting of a charter was a right that could only have been exercised by a king and charters were only given by the king and grants by sub-kings, clergy or laymen which were then confirmed by the king. This right of granting land by charter was a privilege the king guarded carefully.

The titles granted to other rulers in charters confirmed by the king of Mercia show the status given to the royal family. The most interesting example of this is in the Hwiccian royal family. Osric and Oshere both appear as "Rex" in the charters confirmed by AEthelred (Birch, 1885-1893, 43 and 51) and AEthelheard still appears as "king" (Birch, 1885-1893, 158) even though he is a "sub-ruler, son of Oshere, formerly ruler of the Hwicce" (Birch, 1885-1893, 116).

Eanberht, Untred and Aldred were "rulers" (Birch, 1885-1893, 183) and AEthelric the "sub-ruler and follower of the famous leader AEthelbald" (Birch, 1885-1893, 154). Ailric apparently tried to save the prestige of the family and appears as "son of the ruler Oseri" but it may be that the monk who wrote the charter did not know the proper title to give him (Birch, 1885-1893, 117). They were not the only kings to have this happen to them. Frithuwald of Surrey appears in two charters as "Frithuwald, ruler of the province of Surrey, sub-ruler to Wulfhere of Mercia" (Birch, 1885-1893, 34 and 39) and Berhtwald appears as "Berhtwald...in fact not a king in power but a sub-ruler..." (Birch, 1885-1893, 65).

Evidence is also found in witness lists, where persons with the title comite appear in attendance of the king. The grants themselves begin to take a new form and there are records of charters by AEthelbald granting dues or the remission of dues on ships or tolls due at certain harbours (Birch, 1885-1893, 171). This is proof that there was a steady and organised trade in the early eighth century.

CONCLUSION

Bede gives the best history of the conversions but the only real evidence we have is of the religious beliefs of the kings and princes who entered monasteries or travelled on pilgrimage to Rome. The charters supplement this evidence by providing us with examples of gifts to the Church and foundation of monasteries. This is the best documented aspect of life from this period and the monasteries were repositories for documents as well as for learning.

The charter evidence also gives us many other sites that were settled by the late seventh century and the saints' lives give us the names of the monasteries but these are too late to be of help for the earlier period. There is evidence for the existence of the comitatus of the king and for other men. There are a few hints of when trade started, if it ever stopped from the Roman period. To get a better picture of life during this period, we must examine other evidence.

To Go Back to the Introduction press

To Continue to Chapter 2 press