Scragg Donald (Edited). Edgar, King of the English 959-975: New Interpretations (Pubns Manchester Centre for Anglo-Saxon Studies)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

134 FREDERICK M. BIGGS

yet the term ætheling at least draws attention to Edgar’s eligibility to the throne,

and could reﬂect his position in line to succeed his brother.

In any case, by placing the division of the kingdom two years into Eadwig’s

reign, this version of the ASC corresponds to the position taken by two of the

leading religious reformers of the day, Æthelwold and, assuming that his biog-

rapher represents his position, Dunstan. In his account of Edgar’s establishment

of monasteries, Æthelwold contrasts Eadwig, who ‘þurh his cildhades nyteness

þis rice tostencte

 his annesse todælde’,

and Edgar, who,

þurh Godes gyfe ealne Angelcynnes anweald begeat  þæs rices twislunge eft

to annesse brohte,  swa gesundlice ealles weold þæt þa þe on æran timan

lifes wæron  his hyldran gemundon  heora dæda gefyrn tocneowan, þearle

swiðe wundredon  waﬁende cwædon: ‘Hit is la formicel godes wunder þæt

þysum cildgeongum cynincge þus gesundfullice eallu þing underðeodde synt

on his cynelicum anwealde.’

Æthelwold had found ways to accommodate Eadwig, even apparently acknowl-

edging his marriage to Ælfgifu, whom he was forced to give up in 958.

yet this

contrast between the two brothers suggests that the mechanics of joint kingship

seems to him to have implied a division of the kingdom that is at odds with the

idea of divine rule.

B’s Lif

e of Dunstan, as one might expect given the animosity between Eadwig

and Dunstan,

makes this criticism even harsher. It begins its account of these

events ﬁrst by disparaging Eadwig as ‘a youth indeed in age and endowed with

little wisdom in government’ and then states, in contradiction to ASC D, that

when he came to power ‘he ﬁlled up the numbers and names of kings among

both peoples’ (in utraque plebe regum numeros nominaque suppleret), a clause

Whitelock explains as meaning he ruled over both Wessex and Mercia.

It then

offers a detailed account of the division of the kingdom that continues to deni-

grate Eadwig now in contrast to Edgar:

Factum est autem ut rex præfatus in prætereuntibus annis penitus a brumali

populo relinqueretur contemptus, quoniam in commisso regimine insipienter

egisset, sagaces vel sapientes odio vanitatis disperdens, et ignaros qosque

sibi consimiles studio dilectionis adsciscens. Hunc ita omium conspiratione

DOE, s.v.; and Dumville, ‘Ætheling’.

Councils & Synods, p. 146; ‘had through the ignorance of childhood dispersed his kingdom

and divided its unity’.

Councils & Synods; ‘obtained by God’s grace the whole dominion of England, and brought

back to unity the divisions of the kingdom, and ruled everything so prosperously that those

who had lived in former times and remembered his ancestors and knew their deeds of old,

wondered very greatly and said in amazement: It is indeed a very great miracle of God that

all things in his royal dominion are thus prosperously subjected to this youthful king.’

See yorke, Æthelwold, pp. 78–80.

This source provides the account of Eadwig leaving his coronation feast to cavort with

a mother and daughter, and Dunstan escorting him back to the assembly; see EHD, p.

901.

EHD, p. 900; see n. 7 for Whitelock’s literal translation.

EDGAR’S PATH TO THE THRONE 135

relictum, elegere sibi, Deo dictante, Eadgarum ejusdem Eadwigi germanum

in regem, qui virga imperiali injustos juste percuteret, benignos autem sub

eadem æquitatis virgula paciﬁce custodieret. Sicque universo populo testante

publica res regum ex difﬁnitione sagacium sejuncta est, ut famosum ﬂumen

Tamesæ regnum disterminaret amborum.

The suggestion here that the division itself is wrong becomes clearer in B’s

account of Edgar’s reuniting of the realm:

Interea germanus ejusdem Eadgari, quia justa Dei sui judicia deviando dereli-

quit, novissimum ﬂatum misera morte exspiravit; et regnum illius ipse, velut

æwiid jæres ab utroque populo electus, suscepit, divisaque regnorum jura in

unum sibi sceptrum subdendo copulavit.

The dynamics of the division are more spectacularly portrayed, but the senti-

ment is the same: a divided kingdom is not part of God’s plan.

The complicat

ed history of an estate at Sunbury (Middlesex), which might

at ﬁrst appear to offer a disinterested, and therefore reliable, conﬁrmation of the

division of the kingdom midway through Eadwig’s reign, should, I would argue,

be viewed in this same manner. Indeed, the document that recounts this history

survives as charter VIII in the collection of Westminster Abbey (S 1447),

pre-

sumably because Dunstan gave the estate to the monks;

in any case, internal

evidence establishes that it was written after Dunstan bought the estate, prob-

ably in 968,

and perhaps after a further challenge to his ownership of it.

The

events at issue in this paper are mentioned because, on ascending the throne,

Eadwig asserted his right to the estate since Æthelstan, the person living on it,

Stubbs, Dunstan, pp. 35–6; ‘It came about that the aforesaid king in the passage of years

was wholly deserted by the northern people, being despised because he acted foolishly

in the government committed to him, ruining with vain hatred the shrewd and wise, and

admitting with loving zeal the ignorant and those like himself. When he had been thus

deserted by the agreement of them all, they chose as king for themselves by God’s guid-

ance the brother of the same Eadwig, Edgar, who should strike down the wicked with the

imperial rod, but peacefully guard the good under the same rod of equity. And thus in the

witness of the whole people the state was divided between the kings as determined by

wise men, so that the famous river Thames separated the realms of both’, trans. White-

lock, EHD, p. 901.

Stubbs, Dunstan, p. 36; ‘Meanwhile the brother of this same Edgar, because he turned

from and deserted the just judgments of his God, breathed his last by a miserable death,

and Edgar received his kingdom, being elected by both peoples as true heir, and united

the divided rule of the kingdoms, subjecting them to himself under one sceptre’, trans.

EHD, p. 902.

See S 406. More recent information can be found in The New Regesta Regum Anglorum:

A Searchable Edition of the Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Royal Diplomas 670–1066, devised

by S. Miller (2001); available at http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/chartwww/NewRegReg.html.

History of Middlesex, ed. J. S. Cockburn, H. P. F. King and K. G. T. McDonnell (London,

1969) [Victoria History of the Counties of England, ed. R. B. Pugh], p. 108.

I follow the analysis of A. J. Robertson, who notes that Edgar’s grant of ten hides at

Sunbury to Ælfheah (S 702) survives and is dated 962; our document tells us that Dunstan

purchased the estate from Ælfheah six years later; see Robertson, Charters, p. 338.

See Robertson’s note on lines 15f, Charters, p. 399.

136 FREDERICK M. BIGGS

had failed to pay a ﬁne to his uncle, King Eadred; Eadwig then gave it to one

of his followers who ejected Æthelstan. The story continues,

gemang þam getidde þæt Myrce gecuran Eadgar to cynge .  him anweald ge-

sealdan ealra cynerihta . þa gesohte Æðelstan Eadgar cyng  bæd domes.

Although the language here indicates an abrupt shift in the rule of Mercia during

Eadwig’s reign, Æthelstan’s action may have been motivated by nothing more

than Edgar’s assuming his responsibility at this time. Moreover, while Edgar

did not return the estate to Eadwig’s choice, he too insisted that Æthelstan pay

the ﬁne and, when he could not, Edgar awarded the estate to Earl Æthelstan,

suggesting some continuity in policy.

y case, since these events prove to be marginal to Dunstan’s claim to

the land they reinforce the fact that the charter was written from Dunstan’s per-

spective. Earl Æthelstan then sold the estate to Ecgferth, who ‘unequivocally

committed both the estate and the title-deeds, with the cognisance of the king

to Archbishop Dunstan, in order that he might act as guardian to his widow

and child’.

yet the land still did not come under Dunstan’s control because

at Ecgferth’s death and in opposition to Dunstan’s direct request Edgar again

took possession of it, granting it to Earl Ælfheah, from whom Dunstan ﬁnally

purchased it for 200 mancuses. Dunstan’s perspective is evident and so it is not

surprising that the charter reﬂects his slant on the events of 957 as well: this is

simply the way Dunstan tells this story.

Charters

More than 120 charters survive from the ﬁnal years of Eadred’s reign (950–5)

to Edgar’s ascent to the throne of all of Wessex in 959 and so a full review of

this material is beyond the scope of this essay.

yet, a few points culled mainly

from others, particularly Simon Keynes, should be discussed since the charters

do est

ablish that some division took place in 957. yet they also provide some

support for the claims that Eadwig and Edgar were treated similarly in Eadred’s

ﬁnal years; that Edgar played an active and supportive role during the ﬁrst two

years of his brother’s rule; that Edgar’s status as heir apparent was recognized;

and that after taking up his responsibilities in Mercia, Edgar still viewed his rule

more generally as over the English. This evidence, then, is compatible with the

establishment of Eadwig and Edgar as joint kings in 955.

discussing

the charters of Eadred issued between 950 and 955, Keynes

notes several distinctive features, but ‘the most curious’, he asserts, ‘is the

Ibid., pp. 90–1; ‘In the meantime it happened that the Mercians chose Edgar as king, and

gave him control of all the royal prerogatives. Then Æthelstan betook himself to King

Edgar and asked for judgment.’

Ibid., p. 93.

In this discussion of the charters, I have relied on the New Regesta Regum Anglorum for

both primary and secondary materials.

EDGAR’S PATH TO THE THRONE 137

absence of the king’s name from the list itself, as if he had not been present

when the diploma was drawn up’.

He suggests that ‘the explanation may lie

either in the king’s illness or in the turbulent political history of the period:

perhaps King Eadred was too ill to attend meetings of his councillors, or if he

was not, he was possibly preoccupied with the subjugation of the Northumbrian

kingdom, and in either case he may have authorized an agency independent of

his own entourage to draw up diplomas on his behalf’.

During such troubled

times, it may well have seemed sensible to use joint kingship to clarify the next

two steps in the succession. Moreover, several of these charters indicate that

Eadwig and Edgar were indeed being treated as equals. A grant (S 565) of land

to Ælfsige, bishop of Winchester, in 955 is attested by Eadwig cliton and, im-

mediately following (as in the other cases cited here), Eadgar cliton; another

569) to Uhtred (also in 955) by Eadwig cliton and Eadgar atheling; and a

third (S 570) to Brihtric (956 for 953–5) by Adwi cliton and Adgar cliton.

While other charters from this period list only Eadwig as cliton or atheling and

Edgar as his brother (S 566, 571, and 572), there is some evidence that the two

were being treated in a way compatible with joint kingship.

Around sixty

charters survive from the ﬁrst year of Eadwig’s reign, and

Edgar witnessed most of them, usually immediately following his brother al-

though sometimes his name is third. In most (around forty) he is identiﬁed as

Eadwig’s brother, and nine of these (S 583, 587, 588, 595, 602, 609, 622, 624

and 625) specify that he attested celeriter, ‘quickly’ and so, presumably, with

enthusiasm. If not a forgery, one of the other charters (S 605) from this group,

perhaps from 955 or early 956, is particularly interesting because it identiﬁes

Edgar not only as clito but also with the phrase adolphus deuotus, ‘devoted

brother’. In any case, Edgar is identiﬁed in eleven others (S 589, 591, 593, 594,

597, 614, 629, 630, 637, 661 and 666) with the phrase indoles clito (or some-

times either indoles or clito). The impression created by these attestations is that

Edgar played an active and supportive role in Eadwig’s government, which in

return recognized his special status.

There

are

many fewer charters from 957, some eleven in total, but they too

present a suggestive picture since Edgar does not appear in roughly half (S 639,

640, 642, 644 and 647). He is always identiﬁed as Eadwig’s brother in the ones

he attested (S 641, 643, 645, 646 and 649), and all also specify that he did so

celeriter. yet

perhaps

the most remarkable of these charters is the grant of forty

hides of land to Archbishop Oda at Ely (S 646) on 9 May since it indicates,

as Dorothy Whitelock and Simon Keynes have noted,

that Edgar’s move to

Mercia took place sometime after this date. As one might expect, Edgar did

not attest any of the charters from the remaining years of Eadwig’s reign and

Keynes, Diplomas, p. 46.

Ibid.

See also S 576, which cannot be authentic as it stands, yet contains the suggestive attesta-

tion, ‘ego Eadwig et Eadgar indoles hec conﬁrmauimus’.

Reported by CTCE, p. 278.

138 FREDERICK M. BIGGS

according to Whitelock and Keynes the witnesses on these documents were all

from south of Thames.

Edgar’s own charters of 958–9 conﬁrm that he ruled in Mercia but contain

some suggestions that he considered himself more generally as a king of the

English. Whitelock has pointed out that they do not refer to Eadwig nor does

Eadwig witness them; and Whitelock and Keynes have noted that they are at-

tested by ofﬁcials from north of the Thames.

In most, as one would expect,

Edgar is identiﬁed as King of the Mercians, but there are a few in which he

claimed a more general title. In two grants of 958, one to Ælfheah (S 674) and

the other to Oscytel (S 679), he appears as ‘industrius Anglorum rex’ in the

text and attested as ‘rex Anglorum’. Similar titles appear in three more doubtful

charters (S 670–3). Taken as a whole, then, the charter evidence indicates not

only that Edgar ruled in Mercia from 957 but that this transition was planned in

the last years of Eadred’s reign and was put into effect with little or no disrup-

tion to the state.

Coins

Since they establish that Eadwig remained in control of the mints both south and

north of the Thames throughout the period, the many coins from 955–9 are com-

patible with the theory that joint rule was planned from the beginning; yet rec-

ognizing this possibility may allow numismatists to understand some anomalies.

Working under the assumption that the kingdom was divided in 957,

Blunt,

Stewart and Lyon speciﬁcally looked for evidence of coins minted by Edgar,

but did not discover them.

Instead, what they found was a volume of coins

minted by Eadwig that was simply too great to force into a two-year period as

well as a mule that spans the coinage of Eadwig and Edgar, indicating Eadwig’s

continued minting in the north after 957.

It seems unlikely that Edgar would

wrest control of Mercia from Eadwig only then to allow him to continue minting

his own coins. On the other hand, recognizing their shared power may offer new

explanations for cases such as Hunred, a moneyer active under Eadred, who ap-

parently all but stopped minting under Eadwig, yet who then minted some coins

for Edgar.

Under a joint rule we could imagine some coins minted for Edgar

perhaps even as early as 955.

Ibid.

Although it should be noted again that their correspondence with Whitelock and Keynes

introduced the approach developed in this paper.

CTCE, p. 280.

Ibid., p. 278.

Ibid., p. 148.

EDGAR’S PATH TO THE THRONE 139

Conclusion

Recognizing joint kingship at the core of the events that led to Edgar’s sole

rule over the Anglo-Saxons allows us to understand the competing claims of

the written record and may provide new opportunities for assessing the related

charters and coins. The D version of the Chronicle suggests that joint rule was

planned in 955; A indicates that Eadwig’s reign continued uninterrupted until

his death in 959; and B allows us to perceive that Edgar’s responsibilities in

Mercia began in 957. Each is accurate in its own way. Moreover, the sources

related to B, Æthelwold’s account of the establishment of monasteries and the

Life of Dunstan, reveal how these events, combined with the Church’s aversion

to joint rule, could be slanted to criticize Eadwig, a slant that provides a context

for the ‘Sunbury Charter’. Although they will require further study, the char-

ers

and coins from the period appear to support this theory as well. yet one is

still left with the impression that the confusion would not have arisen had joint

kingship been more common, as it had been previously, in the late Anglo-Saxon

period. While politically savvy, Eadwig and Edgar, ruling together between 955

and 959, were out of key with their time.

When I proposed reading on this subject, I was unaware that it had caught the interest

of Professor Simon Keynes, who, I now realize, has been gathering information on it

for many years. I would like to thank him for his response in Manchester and for im-

proving this paper indirectly through his guide, Anglo-Saxon England: A Bibliographical

Handbook, 6th ed. (Cambridge, 2005)). Fred A. Cazel, Jr, Andrew M. Pfrenger, Mercedes

Salvador

and Barbara yorke are also to be thanked for their help. My own interest grew

out of work on Beowulf; see ‘The Politics of Succession in Beowulf and Anglo-Saxon

England’, Speculum 80 (2005), 709–41.

III

Edgar, 959–975

The Women in Edgar’s Life

BARBARA yORKE

[Cnut] was at Wilton one Pentecost, when, with his customary bloody-mind-

edness, he burst into a frightful peal of laughter against the virgin herself [St

Edith]: he would never believe that the daughter of King Edgar was a saint,

seeing that the king had surrendered himself to his vices and was a complete

slave to his lusts, while he ruled his subjects more like a tyrant.

HIS story from William of Malmesbury neatly encapsulates some of the

features and problems of studying King Edgar’s relationships with women.

There are many things that we do not know about the reign of Edgar, but we

are relatively well-informed about some of the women who were signiﬁcant

to him. With a shortage of other narrative material, his relations with women

were a means through which historians of the Middle Ages sought to elucidate

aspects of his reign and ﬁnd something of his elusive personality. The concen-

tration in more recent years has been on the women themselves. The study of

Edgar’s kinswomen and wives has had a major role to play in Pauline Stafford’s

pioneering studies of the political and family roles of Anglo-Saxon royal women

that are a major inﬂuence behind this paper.

However, its main aim is to return

to the issue of what we can learn about Edgar himself, and his shifting reputa-

tion, through the women associated with him.

The female

relatives and wives who played signiﬁcant roles at different points

in Edgar’s life can be introduced brieﬂy. Edgar’s mother Ælfgifu died in c. 944,

that is shortly after, and perhaps therefore as a result of, his own birth. Little is

known of her or her paternal background, but her own mother Wynﬂæd has left

William of Malmesbury, The Deeds of the Bishops of England (Gesta Pontiﬁcum

Anglorum), trans. D. Preest (Woodbridge, 2002), ch. 87, p. 127.

In particular, P. Stafford, ‘Sons and Mothers, Family Politics in the Early Middle Ages’,

Medieval Women, ed. D. Baker, Studies in Church History, Subsidia 1 (Oxford, 1978),

pp. 79–100; ‘The King’s Wife in Wessex 800–1066’, Past and Present 91 (1981), 3–27;

Queens, Concubines and Dowagers: The King’s Wife in the Early Middle Ages (Athens,

GA, 1983); Queen Emma and Queen Edith: Queenship and Women’s Power in Eleventh-

Century England (Oxford, 1997).

Campbell, Æthelweard, p. 54; for discussion of the date of her death see S. Keynes, ‘King

Alfred the Great and Shaftesbury Abbey’, Studies in the Early History of Shaftesbury

Abbey, ed. L. Keen (Dorchester, 1999), pp. 17–72, at 65, n. 78.