Wayland the Smith

Wayland was a legendary figure whose name and fame stretched across the entire Germanic world, referred to in stories from the Norse, Frisians, Germans, Anglo-Saxons, and more. The most detailed accounts are found in Old Norse sources, particularly a poem that is part of the Poetic Edda. The oldest (possible) reference is a gold solidus (see illustration) from c.575-600CE with a Frisian runic inscription ᚹᛖᛚᚪᛞᚢ, "wayland." (This might not refer to the legend, but rather a person with the same name.)

Other depictions that are clearly Wayland are found on some 8th/9th century carved stones called Ardre image stones, and an 8th century whale-bone chest called the Franks Casket.

Anglo-Saxon culture made frequent reference to the smith. In Beowulf, we are told the source of the hero's armor:

If the battle takes me, send back
this breast-webbing that Weland fashioned
and Hrethel gave me, to Lord Hygelac.
Fate goes ever as fate must. (lines 452-55, Heaney translation)

Another Anglo-Saxon poem, Waldere, mentions the hero's sword made by Weland. In Alfred the Great's translation of Boethius, he laments "What now are the bones of Wayland, the goldsmith preeminently wise?" Medieval romances often included swords made by Wayland.

A megalithic mound in the Berkshire Downs is known as Wayland's Smithy, about which was the legend that, if one left a horse tethered there overnight with a silver coin, the horse would be shod by morning.

More than just an image and symbol of smithing, the poem in the Poetic Edda, the Völundarkviða (Old Norse: "The lay of Völund"), tells that he was captured and crippled (similar to Hephaestus, the lame smith of the Greek pantheon) in order to be forced to work for a king. I'll tell you that story tomorrow.

The Cuerdale Hoard

The Vale of York Hoard was the largest hoard since the Cuerdale Hoard. So what was special about Cuerdale? Well, the York Hoard had over 600 items; the Staffordshire Hoard about 4600; Cuerdale, found in 1840, contained more than 8600, the largest Viking hoard ever in the United Kingdom, and surpassed by only one other in the world.

Cuerdale is a parish in the Duchy of Lancaster with very few buildings nowadays. Some workmen repairing an embankment of the nearby River Ribble found a lead box protruding from a bend. It was claimed by the local bailiffs who kept it intact and gave it to Queen Victoria, owner of the Duchy, who in turn gave it to the British Museum. After examining the contents, they were distributed to museums and others, with the greater part kept by the British Museum in the Coins and Medals Department.

The majority of the hoard was silver coins (over 7000) from different areas: the Viking kingdoms of eastern England, Alfred the Great's Wessex, and coins from overseas (one Byzantine coin, early Scandinavian coins, Islamic dirhams, Papal and North Italian coins, and 1,000 Frankish Carolingian coins). Many of the coins probably came from raids on other kingdoms. Besides coins the hoard contained jewelry and hacksilver.

The dates on the coins suggest that it was buried by 910CE but not much before 905. The Ribble flows into the Irish Sea and was a frequent landing spot for those coming from Ireland. The Vikings had been expelled from Dublin in 902, and this hoard might have been buried by Vikings on their way from Ireland for temporary safekeeping because transporting such a large collection made the traveler a target. It may have been intended to finance a re-conquest of Ireland. Why they never returned we will never know.

There is a curious legend in the area, that "Anyone who stood on the south bank of the River Ribble at Walton le Dale, and looked up river towards Ribchester, would be within sight of the richest treasure in England." When and how this legend began no one could say, but it suggests vague knowledge of the treasure, as if it were a more recent stashing in memory. One theory is that, during the reign of Richard II, a Sir Thomas de Molyneux who lived nearby and intended to use it to support Richard, possessed it and hid it there. It is possible that comments made in the late 14th century led to the legend.

After three posts on "largest" hoards, we now will turn to the absolute, unconditionally largest Viking hoard ever uncovered. For this we turn from England to Sweden, and the Spillings Hoard...next time.

Cuthbert's Travels

Saints' relics are significant for a couple reasons. They provide a reminder of a saintly life and inspire others to emulate saints. They also attract pilgrims who make donations. Keeping and maintaining relics and saints' bodies is important, and sometimes that meant moving them around.

Cuthbert (c.635 - 687) was a very important saint in Northumbria, but his reputation was enhanced and expanded when Alfred the Great had a vision of Cuthbert that inspired him in his battles against the Danes. Alfred's house of Wessex became particularly devoted to the northern saint, making Cuthbert a saint for all of England. Preserving his remains was a necessity.

Initially buried at Lindisfarne, Danish invasions caused the monks to flee the island in 875, taking Cuthbert's bones along. Bede wrote that Cuthbert was put in a stone sarcophagus, but fortunately for the people in charge of moving him that was abandoned for a wooden coffin. After seven years of relocating to different sites, including Melrose, he was taken to Chester-le-Street, a market town in County Durham, where the body was interred and remained for 112 years at the parish church of St. Mary and St. Cuthbert.

In 995, the coffin was moved to Ripon, again because of the Danes. Upon its return to Chester-le-Street, the wagon carrying the coffin became stuck on the road at Durham. This was seen as a sign that the saint wished his remains to be in Durham, and he was taken to Durham Cathedral.

When William the Conqueror began the Harrying of the North to put down northern rebels, Bishop Ælfwine in 1069 tried to take Cuthbert's body back to Lindisfarne, but he was caught (and imprisoned, where he died).

In 1104, the coffin was opened and his relics taken to a new shrine built for him in Durham Cathedral. At this time a book was found, a Gospel of John called the Cuthbert Gospel; it is the oldest surviving book with its original binding.

During the Dissolution of the Monasteries by Henry VIII, Cuthbert's shrine was destroyed, but the relics survived interred at the site. A dig at the site in 1827 uncovered the relics and the remains of a wooden coffin (illustrated above), reconstructed from what pieces were salvageable.

All things considered, I am sure Cuthbert would have preferred to remain at Lindisfarne. What made the "Holy Island" so special is worth a closer look...next time.

An Evil Queen

First, let me say that there was more than one Eadburh. Eadburh was the name of King Alfred the Great's mother-in-law (Alfred's wife was Ealhswitha, daughter of Eadburh (830 - 895) of the Mercian royal family and Æthelred Mucel of Mercia). Then there was Eadburh of Winchester (921 - 951CE), daughter of King Edward the Elder (mentioned here), who became a saint. 

Then there was the Eadburh who was most definitely not a saint.

King Offa of Mercia and Queen Cynethryth had five children: one sone who became king of Mercia after Offa, and four girls. They married their daughter Eadburh (seen to the left) to King Beorhtric of Wessex (reigned 787 - 802) in 789.

According to Asser's Life of King Alfred, Eadburh made many enemies and demanded they be killed or exiled. Possibly jealous of anyone who was too close a confidant of Beorhtric, she (supposedly) attempted to poison one of his favorites, but wound up causing the target and her husband to be killed. Her part in the king's death being discovered, she fled to Francia and appealed for sanctuary from Charlemagne.

Asser goes on to say that Charlemagne brought out one of his young sons and asked her which she would prefer to marry. (In 802 or just after, when this would have taken place, the 55-year-old Charlemagne would have been a widower, his fourth wife Luitgard having died in 800. Still, it's a little hard to swallow.) Eadburh said she'd prefer the son because of his youth, at which Charlemagne replied: "Had you chosen me, you would have had my son; but because you have chosen my son, you will have neither him nor me."

So Charlemagne makes her an abbess in a convent, but after she is caught having a sexual affair with a Saxon, she is expelled from the convent. She dies as a penniless beggar on the streets of Pavia in Lombardy.

Let's look at this from another angle.

Eadburh, daughter of the powerful Offa of Mercia, married Beorhtric of Wessex (seen to the right). This made Wessex and Mercia allies, to the benefit mostly of Wessex. To keep Offa pleased, Beorhtric might well have given Eadburh plenty of authority. In their 13 years of marriage, however, there was no evidence of offspring. Kings need an heir (it's wise to have "an heir and a spare"), and many in Beorhtric's position would have wanted to put Eadburh away and find someone more fertile, which he did not do. We do not know when Beorhtric was born, but it does not seem likely that he died of old age when Eadburh became a widow.

So why is Asser telling this story at the beginning of a Life of King Alfred? He uses the story to explain why Wessex kings do not let their wives use the title "queen," because Eadburh's actions supposedly tainted the practice.

But wait, there's more.

As in the tragedies of Socrates, "look for the earlier crime." The alliance of Offa and Beorhtric created a power strong enough to make some significant changes in the politics of southern Great Britain. One of their acts was to drive Ecgberht (born about 771-775) into exile in the 780s, whereupon he fled to the court of Charlemagne. Who was Ecgberht? Why drive a child out of Wessex? He was the heir to the throne of Wessex, and by driving him out, Beorhtric became king. After Beorhtric's death, Ecgberht returned and ruled Wessex from 802 until 839.

So why was this important in a biography of Alfred? Because Ecgberht's son and heir was Æthelwulf, and Æthelwulf's son and heir was ... (wait for it) ... Alfred. Asser made sure to denigrate the man responsible for preventing Alfred's grandfather from taking the throne, and made a statement about how regressive Wessex was toward women at the time.

Did Eadburh poison and exile her enemies? If she did, where did she learn such behaviors? Well, the hand that rocks the cradle...

Tomorrow I'll tell you about her mother.

The Life of Asser

Most of what we know about King Alfred the Great comes from a single manuscript copy from the Cotton Library, Vita Ælfredi regis Angul Saxonum (Latin: "The Life of Alfred, King of the Anglo-Saxons"). We know it was begun in 893 because Asser mentions how old Alfred was at the time of writing (Alfred died six years later).

John Asser was a Welsh monk at St. David's in Dyfed (southwest Wales). We know little about him until he was recruited by Alfred to join his court for his scholarly abilities.

In the biography, we learn that Alfred decided on St. Martin's Day in 887 (November 11) that he wanted to learn Latin, and asked Asser to be his teacher. Asser asked for six months to consider, since he did not want to leave his position at St. David's. This was granted, but Asser fell ill when he returned to St. David's, and a year later Alfred to ask why the delay. Asser said he would decide when he recovered. The monks at St. David's felt the arrangement could be beneficial to them, and Asser agreed to divide his time between the two obligations.

Asser mentions reading to Alfred in the evenings, meeting Alfred's mother-in-law, and traveling with him. He describes the geography of his travels in England, as if he were writing for an audience unfamiliar with the English countryside: possible for his Welsh countrymen, whose he wished to educate about the king. He also includes some anecdotes that help flesh out information otherwise found in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

The biography does not mention any events after 893, although Alfred lived another six years (and Asser well beyond that). That fact, and the fact that there is a single manuscript, suggests that what we have is merely an early draft that never was finished and sent to be copied and distributed. On the other hand, there are other literary works that show evidence of access to Asser's manuscript. A history written by Byrhtferth of Ramsey in the late 10th century quotes large sections of Asser. An anonymous monk in Flanders seems acquainted with Asser's work in his 1040s-written Encomium Emma (Latin: "Praise of [Queen] Emma"). In the early 12th century, Florence of Worcester quotes Asser in his chronicle. It seems clear that Asser's manuscript either "made the rounds" or lived in a much-visited library; we just don't know where it was in its earliest existence.

We do know that Bishop Matthew Parker (died 1575) possessed it in his library, but it was not included in the catalog when he bequeathed his library to Corpus Christi, Cambridge. Prior to that, it was owned by the antiquary John Leland in the 1540s. He might have acquired it when Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries, salvaging it when their properties and possessions were being sold off.

I seem to have turned a life of Asser into a discussion of his one known piece off writing.

As a reward, and possibly to keep Asser from going back to Wales, Alfred gave him the monastery of Exeter. He was made Bishop of Sherborne sometime between 892 and 900. He may have been a bishop already, at St. David's.

In 1603, the antiquarian William Camden printed an edition of Asser's Life in which he ascribes to Asser the founding of a college at Oxford. This extraordinary and evidence-free claim was repeated, but no modern scholar or historian.

The Annals of Wales (probably kept at St. David's) mention Asser's death in 908. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for 909 (or 910, in some versions; different chroniclers started the year at different dates) tells us "Asser, who was bishop at Sherborne, departed."

And now for something completely different: one of the anecdotes he tells is about a daughter of King Offa, who married a king of Wessex and became a stereotype of Disney films: an evil queen. Tomorrow I'll tell you about Eadburh.

Alfred the Not So Great?

It is not inappropriate—in fact, it is mandatory for a historian—to question the assumptions that come down to them from the past.* So when someone is called "Great"—the only English monarch to be named so—it is perhaps inevitable that someone will question what earned him that epithet.

Here I had mentioned how Alfred the Great reformed and renovated the defense of southern England by building or re-building 30 strongholds (called burhs in Old English), and increased taxes according to the amount of a landowner's real estate. Real estate was measured in "hides" and so this grand plan was called the Burghal Hidage. In fact, there is a document called the Burghal Hidage (a burned copy was salvaged from the Cotton Library). It is this creation of a strong defensive system, which included creating a standing army of about 27,000, that helped earn him the praise he has received.

Unfortunately for his reputation, the United Kingdom is fascinated by its history and therefore is constantly engaged in archaeological investigation. Forty years of archaeological evidence on the strongholds that comprise the Burghal Hidage has raised eyebrows about Alfred's role.

It turns out that Alfred's plan may not have been entirely Alfred's. Towns that were part of the Burghal Hidage and that claim now that they were founded by Alfred the Great became towns some time after Alfred's reign. Also, many of these burhs were clearly established prior to Alfred's reign and continuously maintained.

Part of developing these strongholds included Alfred being credited with the development of the connected towns and an "Alfredian" efficient street plan. Excavations in Worcester, however, show that the early street plan was in fact established about 100 years after Alfred's death.

So where did we get the original information about Alfred's greatness? Why is he given credit for things that were developed before or after his reign. That would be Asser, a Welsh monk brought to Alfred's court. His life, and his Life of King Alfred, are worth a closer look, for which I hope you'll come back here tomorrow.

*I say "them" and not "us" because I am not properly a historian: I am just a story-teller.

Alfred's Improvements

Alfred the Great (849 - 899) was not an idle king, even when not battling Danish invasions to protect the shores of Great Britain.

Some of his reforms and innovations did involve the military, though. The traditional way to deal with trouble was for each small community to assemble its own men against an attack. The Danes, however, would attack swiftly a small area, conquer it, and fortify it as a new base from which to mount further attacks and to which they could retreat if their further military plan looked like it was failing. They could make steady progress across the country before a large-scale defense could be mounted by a king. After defeating Guthrum at Edington, Alfred used the following respite to plan a standing army, ready to march and strike at the first sign of invaders.

In order to do this, Alfred had to raise taxes. His people had what was called the trinoda necessitas (three-fold tax): obligations for military service, fortress work, and bridge repair. Alfred increased a landholder's taxes based on the productivity of his land. He also created over third fortified places in souther Great Britain from which he could organize resistance to invaders.

He also increased naval power. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle claims that Alfred's ships were larger and faster than ships of the Danes or Frisians. Alfred wanted to stop invaders before they reached shore, if possible.

He was also responsible for some legal reforms. He gathered together many of the laws from the past, including the code of King Ine of Wessex (689 - 726), rejecting laws that didn't please him, and produced a law code of 120 chapters with a strong biblical influence.

Even while dealing with these many "royal obligations" he was encouraging changes in education and culture. Perhaps inspired by Charlemagne's re-birth of culture, he established a school at court for his children and others. He also arranged for translations into English of Latin works he felt everyone should know. Concerned that the Viking invasions were a sign of God's wrath, he founded monasteries and "imported" monks because he found little local interest in populating the monasteries. He made sure copies of Gregory the Great's Pastoral Care went to his bishops for the better preparation of priests.

Now, calling anyone "the Great" will always raise questions about the accuracy of the epithet, and Alfred is no exception. Tomorrow we'll hear why some modern historians claim he wasn't that Great. See you then.

Alfred versus Danes

After establishing the Danelaw that was supposed to bring peace between the Danes/Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons of the south, Alfred thought that his reign had eliminated major military engagements. With the death of Guthrum, with whom he had negotiated the peace, Vikings apparently did not feel obligated to honor the borders.

A fleet of 330 ships arrived on English shores in 893, including wives and children, indicating their intent to colonize, not just plunder and go. They settled At Appledore and Milton, both in Kent, and Alfred set up men to keep an eye on their movements. Alfred started talks with Hastein, the Viking chieftain in Milton, but while doing so, the group at Appledore started moving northwestward. Alfred's eldest son, Edward, defeated them in Surrey. A siege at Exeter was defeated by Alfred. There were other battles, until by 895 the Danes were running out of food and supplies. They retreated to the Thames, and fortified themselves 20 miles north of London, but they were outmaneuvered by Alfred who blocked the river. In 897 they retreated, some to Northumbria, some to East Anglia, some to their ships and back to Europe.

Alfred lamented the effect of Danish raids on England, especially education:

...learning had declined so thoroughly in England that there were very few men on this side of the Humber who could understand their divine services in English or even translate a single letter from Latin into English: and I suppose that there were not many beyond the Humber either. [Alfred's preface to his translation of Pastoral Care]

Manuscript production also suffered during these years; there was also much destruction of manuscripts when Danes burned churches and monasteries. An 873 document is so poorly made that a historian suggests the scribe did not even know Latin. Alfred had established a school for his own children and others, where they studied both English and Latin. He encouraged learning, especially in English, for everyone who had a mind to apply themselves.

His reign produced many other improvements and changes in the culture, and I'll talk about them tomorrow, before we sk the question: Was Alfred really great?

Alfred the Great

Alfred the Great (848 - 26 October 899) was not the King of England, because at the time there was no unified England. He was king of the West Saxons (Wessex), which covered much of the south of Great Britain.

His father, Æthelwulf, died when Alfred was about 10 years old, and the crown went in turn to three of Alfred's brothers, Æthelbald, Æthelberht and Æthelred, before Alfred was crowned in April 871.

His chief task as king was fighting off invasions by Viking. In 878, after the decisive Battle of Edington against Guthrum, Alfred made an agreement with the Vikings, granting to them northern England, the north-east Midlands, and East Anglia (an area that became known as the Danelaw) in exchange for leaving the rest of Great Britain safe from invasion. Alfred also convinced Guthrum to convert to Christianity, whereupon he was baptized with the name Athelstan.

This attempt at peace did not last. Alfred was forced to deal with more Danish incursions. In 885 there was a raid on Kent, an ally of Alfred in south-east England. The Danes besieged Rochester, whereupon Alfred gathered a large that caused the Danes to abandon Rochester and flee to their ships. A year later, Alfred reoccupied the city of London (which was not as important as it became later), rebuilding the Roman wall and making the city safe for habitation and trade again.

In that same year he was named King of the Anglo-Saxons. Contemporary chronicles claim that all Saxon kingdoms of the time recognized him as ruler. This unification of the Anglo-Saxons did not mean all things were going well. Guthrum-Athelstan passed away in 889, and the uneasy peace that had been brokered between him and Alfred began to dissolve. Alfred's kingdom was about to become embroiled in frequent battle with Vikings again. We'll look at the latter years of his reign tomorrow.

Let's Talk Clocks

What constitutes a "clock"? The Latin horologium could refer to a clock or a timepiece of a sundial or the building or structure designed to support any of those.

Modern horology, the study of the measurement of time, distinguishes clocks which mark time by striking something (the word "clock" comes from French cloche, "bell"), whereas a timepiece does not. So a timepiece can mean a watch, a sundial, a clepsydra, or an hourglass, etc.

The sundial was likely the earliest way to measure time: a shadow on a flat surface displays the progression of the sun.

The clepsydra (Greek κλεψύδρα, literally "water thief"), was used in Babylonb, Persia, and Egypt as far back as the 16th century BCE. The simplest form is a bowl or other vessel with a hole from which the water drains, and markings to match drainage levels with the passage of time. The Greco-Roman world devised an in-flow (rather than out-flow) method which, as water filled a container, would trigger a sound, creating an "alarm clock." Water clocks evolved that used gears and escapement mechanisms to produce greater accuracy.

An escapement is a gear mechanism that ticks forward and back to cause another piece to advance. The illustration shows how this works in a pendulum clock, advancing the hands. The use of the escapement was crucial to the development of mechanical clocks, which started to appear in the 14th century in Europe. (Not in the 10th, built by Gerbert d'Aurillac.)

Let's not neglect candle clocks. A Chinese poem written in 520CE by You Joanfu mentions a clock marked so that it could be used while burning to measure the passage of night time. The Anglo-Saxons credit Alfred the Great with creating the candle clock. He used squat candles (<5" high) marked at 1" intervals to mark time.

The hourglass was also a common method of measuring time, the earliest depiction of which is in a 1338 painting by Ambrogio Lorenzetti.

The earliest mechanical clock, a clock that did not use water or sand or candles, that used a predictable motion due to the escapement and a pendulum, did not appear until the early 1300s. Norwich Cathedral had a tower clock constructed in the early 1320s. The first known municipal clock that struck on the hours was in Milan in 1336. Over the next few decades, mechanical clocks appeared all over: Old St. Paul's Cathedral, Salisbury Cathedral (still has many original parts!), Wells Cathedral (still with its original face), etc. Detailed descriptions of clock designs by Richard of Wallingford (1292 - 1336) and Giovanni de Dondi (c.1330 - 1338) still exist, though the many clocks they built are long gone.

A king who developed his own timepieces made from candles? He sounds like someone worth looking into.

England's Best Hidden Treasure

First page of the Textus Roffensis.
The water damage is from the early 1700s.

The Textus de Ecclesia Roffensi per Ernulphum episcopum ["The Book of the Church of Rochester through Bishop Ernulf"] has been voted England's Best Hidden Treasure by the British Library. It can currently be found in the Medway Studies Centre in Rochester, England, and online. It is 235 vellum leaves from two manuscripts written in the early 1120s, mostly by a single scribe.

What makes it so special? The subject matter, partly. The first manuscript that comprises the Textus Roffensis is is a copy of the laws during the reign of Æthelbert. By creating this record, we have the earliest known example of an (Old) English document,* since the laws of Æthelbert were assembled by 604. And the English is rare: most Anglo-Saxon documents are in the dominant West Saxon dialect, but the Textus is in the Jutish dialect of Anglo-Saxon.

Æthelbert's laws were referenced by Alfred the Great when he created his own laws, and were mentioned by Bede. The Textus was clearly only one of a number of manuscripts that existed to carry these laws to others.

The Textus also has laws from Æthelbert's successors. Wihtred of Kent (reigned c.690 - 725), who died on 23 April 725, created many laws that gave rights to the Church. For example, the Church was free from taxation, and a bishop's word was considered as good as a king's oath.

One of the reasons the Textus Roffensis is prized by English historians is that its attempt to bring together several of the laws of kings in one document:

represents a new self-conscious attempt at recording an English heritage, after the Norman Conquest. The incomers needed an effective guide to the law of King Edward (i.e. King Edward the Confessor) as the Conqueror and King Henry his son promised to observe it; incomer and native alike needed all the resources of the book to preserve their ancient rights and recent acquisitions. [source]

Compiled as it was in the 1120s, the Textus Roffensis is seen as a reminder to the Norman rulers of what rights and privileges were held prior to the Norman Invasion that they were promised would be respected.

*Technically, it also qualifies as the earliest example of a Germanic language document, so no other German-language records exist from the early 7th century.

King of the Broken Kingdom

The various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms

Poor Æthelbert! All the attention this blog gives him is in regard to wergild. He deserves attention for more than putting a price on murder and dislodged teeth. But not today. Today we get side-tracked by the title given to him.

According to Bede, Æthelbert (c. 560 – 24 February 616) was the third of eight kings to be a bretwalda. In context, it is clear that it refers to a ruler who holds sway over various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The term is used by various authors, but is spelled differently. Remember that, at the time, there would be no universal education that would ensure "standard spelling" among all Anglo-Saxon writers. So some manuscripts describing the same status use Bryten-wealda or Breten-anweald.

Because we are talking about Britain, the reader who knows no Anglo-Saxon might hazard a guess that the bret/bryt- root refers to "Britain" and weald might have something to do with "wield" as in "to wield power." This would be an excellent guess, and satisfied scholars for a long time.

One king however, Æthelstan, was referred to as brytenwealda ealles ðyses ealondes, which is best translated as "ruler of all these islands." If brytenwealda already meant "Britain-ruler" there would be no need for the rest of the phrase referring to "all these islands."

The likeliest source of the bret/bryt- root is now thought to the verb breotan which means "to break" or "to disperse." The origin of the phrase used to describe the kings who rule over more than their local kingdom therefore refers to their rule over the "broken" or widely dispersed territories of the Anglo-Saxons. The resemblance to the word "Brit" is coincidental.

A step closer to a true King of all Britains would wait until the late 9th century with King Alfred the Great.

Romsey Abbey: Its Ups & Downs

Romsey Abbey was, for a brief time, the home of Matilda of Scotland and her sister Mary. It is called "Romsey" because it was originally known as "Rum's Eg"—that is, the "area of Rum surrounded by marshes." It was founded by a granddaughter of Alfred the Great, Elflæda, in 907.

It went through some different stages, being refounded in 960 by King Edgar (943-975) as a Benedictine house under the control of the very pious (St.) Ethelflæda. The community thrived until it was sacked by Vikings in 993 and destroyed by fire. Rebuilt about 1000, it became a place to send the children of aristocrats for education (hence Matilda's time there).

A much larger building was erected in the original foundations around 1130 by Bishop Henry of Blois. That building still stands today. Between then and now, however, the Black Death wiped out all but 19 nuns of the religious community. The abbey never regained prominence, finally being suppressed (like so many others) in 1539 by Henry VIII (whose radical changes to the religious house of England was also mentioned here). The nuns were dispersed.

Even though the religious community was dissolved, however, the Abbey retained prominence in the town. Its church was being used as a parish church (St. Lawrence) by the larger community—an extra aisle had been added to the main structure so that townspeople had a place to attend services—and so Romsey did not suffer like many others: being left to fall into ruins or having its stone re-used in other building projects. Oddly, however, a few years later the townspeople purchased the building from the Crown and dismantled the extra aisle used as St. Lawrence, leaving the original Abbey church in which to worship.

In 1643, the English Civil War resulted in internal damage when soldiers tore up the seats and destroyed the organ. Many windows were damaged over the years and not replaced. The 19th century saw an attempt to restore the neglected structure, and now it has a thriving parish community.

Queenshithe

Plaque in Queenhithe.

One of modern London's 25 Wards, Queenhithe, has an ancient history. It is currently quite silted up, but originally was an inlet (probably made during Roman times) for ships to dock at. The name means "Queen's Dock" after Matilda, the wife of King Henry I, when it was presented to her as a source of income from the import duties gathered from ships landing there. The Agas Map of London (c.1560) also names it "Queenshithe"; the "s" has since been dropped.

The site is much older, however. As mentioned, it was no doubt established in Roman times—excavations have found remains of Roman baths in the area. When King Alfred the Great (849-899) "revived" the City of London around 886. Alfred made a gift of it to his brother-in-law Ethelred, and for a time it was called Ædereshyd, or "Ethelred's Dock."

It was an important landing place for ships bringing grain into the city. The nearby Bread Street has existed under that name at least as far back as the Agas Map. Also, Skinners Lane a block away attests to the import of furs, particularly rabbit skins.

It was designated a Scheduled Ancient Monument in 1973, particularly as it is the only surviving site of a once-Saxon harbor. It is therefore protected from random alterations by construction. Its use as a port, however, has fallen off because of its position upriver from London Bridge, preventing large modern ships from reaching it.

The True Cross

Relic of True Cross at Cortona, near Florence

Yesterday's post told of Empress (later Saint) Helena, the mother of the Emperor Constantine, and her finding of the True Cross. According to the historian Socrates Scholasticus (c.380-??), when she came to the place on which Christ had been crucified, she objected to the presence of a Temple of Venus on the spot and ordered it destroyed, and even the earth on which it stood removed. The following excavation revealed three crosses and a loose titulus (the slab on which had been written Christ's titles, in Greek, Latin and Hebrew).

She gave the Cross to the heads of Jerusalem to preserve. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.313-386) records, in his lectures on the Crucifixion, that a relic of the True Cross can be found in the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre (completed in 335 CE) as early as the 340s. We learn more about how the Cross is treated from the account of a nun named Egeria; her Itinerario Egeriæ (Itinerary of Egeria) tells how the silver reliquary is brought out and the piece of the Cross is held firmly in the two hands of the bishop; people com forward and bow to kiss he wood while deacons stand guard. The numerous deacon-guards were necessary because someone once bit off a piece of the wood to take away.

Fragments of the Cross were distributed among the worthy. Cyril of Jerusalem as able to say "The whole earth is full of the relics of the cross of Christ." Small fragments in gold reliquaries could be worn as protection. A piece was sent to Pope Leo I (c.391-461), one supposedly to King Alfred the Great of England in 883 (recorded in  the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle). Fragments were captured in battle and held for ransom, or remained in pagan hands until re-captured.

So many fragments existed, spread across Europe and the Middle East, that John Calvin (1509-1564) wrote:

In some places there are large fragments, as at the Holy Chapel in Paris, at Poitiers, and at Rome, where a good-sized crucifix is said to have been made of it. In brief, if all the pieces that could be found were collected together, they would make a big ship-load. Yet the Gospel testifies that a single man was able to carry it.

St. Helena also found nails with the Cross. She sent two to her son so that one could be inserted into his helmet and protect him in battle, and one likewise could be inserted into the bridle of his horse for more protection. One (of these?) nails made its way to Theodelinda and thence to the Iron Crown of Lombardy.

Debates over the number of nails used at the Crucifixion* (3 or 4?) have gone on for centuries, but are perhaps moot, since besides the Iron Crown o Lombardy, nails from the True Cross can be found in the treasuries of both the Cathedral of Trier and Colle di Val d'Elsa near Siena, built into bridles at both the Cathedral of Carpentras and Milan, in the Holy Lance of German royal regalia in Vienna, and in Santa Croce in Rome. But then, you would need a lot of nails to hold together all that wood mentioned by Calvin.


*There is even a special term, triclavianism, for the belief that only three nails were used.

Æthelstan—The Forgotten King

In the history of the Middle Ages, there must be many "forgotten kings"—those whose rules were too short or too obscure or too trivial to add any momentous events to the modern consciousness (many people know the phrase "The Norman Conquest" even if they couldn't tell you details). In the case of Æthelstan (c.894-939), however, his reign was significant enough for the history of England that it is a shame that he is not known better.

Perhaps there is irony that part of his undeserved obscurity is actually paired with elements that should have helped to make him more noteworthy. To a modern world who wants only a few highlights from studying the past, his accomplishments are overshadowed in classrooms by those of his grandfather, Alfred, the only king in English history to have earned the epithet "the Great."

Also, we have an account about him from William of Malmesbury (c.1095-1143) who said of Æthelstan "no one more just or more learned ever governed the kingdom." Most modern scholars, however, mistrust the Malmesbury account (although some have argued that internal evidence suggests that Malmesbury is actually drawing on an earlier and probably reliable biography). A 10th century Latin poem says of him: "Holy King Æthelstan, whose esteem flourishes and whose honor endures everywhere."

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle often only mentions military engagements, and therefore neglects his administrative and economic achievements. But in his lifetime, he was praised as "the English Charlemagne." He financed Catholic churches. He regulated currency and controlled the weight of silver coins and passed laws to penalize currency fraud. (In the image below of the Æthelstan penny, note the "braiding" around the edge that prevents "coin clippers" from shaving off silver in order to spend a coin of less weight.) He regulated commerce, confining it to the burh (Anglo-Saxon "town"; think Modern English "burg"), encouraging the growth of towns. He consolidated the wilderness areas and settlements in the Midlands, creating new shires, asserting royal control and law more consistently over the entire country.

Æthelstan silver penny

He also made valuable alliances. He married off his half-sisters to European noble families, so that he had connections with brothers-in-law such as the future Holy Roman Emperor Otto. King Harald Fair-Hair of Norway sent his son Haakon to foster at Æthelstan's court. When Harald died and Haakon's brother Eirik Bloodaxe proclaimed himself king, Æthelstan equipped Haakon with ships and men to take his rightful place as King of Norway (which he did).

He won a decisive battle, the Battle of Brunanburh in 937; summed up by Winston Churchill:

The whole of North Britain—Celtic, Danish and Norwegian, pagan and Christian—together presented a hostile front under Constantine, king of the Scots, and Olaf of Dublin, with Viking reinforcements from Norway. [History of the English-Speaking People]

After Æthelstan's victory, he could rightfully call himself "the King of all the English"—the first ruler on that island to be able to do so.

Upon his death in 939, he was laid to rest in Malmesbury Abbey—a place for which he had great affection—rather than the traditional Winchester, which was the seat of power for the royal family of Wessex.

Perhaps, as one fan of Æthelstan put it, his fame is tenuous because there are too many things about his life that cannot be grasped succinctly and with certainty: did he possess the greatest collection of sacred relics at the time, including the Spear of Longinus? Why did he not marry and have children? Did he have a half-brother killed? Was his mother a concubine? These questions, however, should not prevent knowing something about a remarkable and forward-looking figure from England's past.

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has been mentioned here. King Alfred the Great (849-899) originally ordered its creation around 890 for a record of important events since the birth of Christ; it was maintained by anonymous scribes until the end of the reign of King Stephen in 1154. The original language is Anglo-Saxon, also known as Old English, a language all but unrecognizable to speakers of Modern English. By the 12th century, the vocabulary of entries was shifting to early Middle English. No single original manuscript exists. Of the nine fragments known, seven were found in the Cotton Library (see the above link), although the best version is in the Parker Chronicle at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. The fragments have differences; some are surely scribal errors, some are definitely attempts by the copyist to "correct" or "amend" what they were copying with their own knowledge/beliefs.

It is, of course, historically highly inaccurate. The scribes were working with the best knowledge they had at the time, and motives ascribed to important political figures are suspect. Here is the opening, (collated from different manuscripts):

The island Britain is 800 miles long, and 200 miles broad. And there are in the island five nations; English, Welsh (or British), Scottish, Pictish, and Latin. The first inhabitants were the Britons, who came from Armenia, and first peopled Britain southward. Then happened it, that the Picts came south from Scythia, with long ships, not many; and, landing first in the northern part of Ireland, they told the Scots that they must dwell there. But they would not give them leave; for the Scots told them that they could not all dwell there together; "But," said the Scots, "we can nevertheless give you advice. We know another island here to the east. There you may dwell, if you will; and whosoever withstands you, we will assist you, that you may gain it." Then went the Picts and entered this land northward. Southward the Britons possessed it, as we before said. And the Picts obtained wives of the Scots, on condition that they chose their kings always on the female side; which they have continued to do, so long since. And it happened, in the run of years, that some party of Scots went from Ireland into Britain, and acquired some portion of this land. Their leader was called Reoda, from whom they are named Dalreodi.

For all its flaws, its nearly 100,000 words are, in many cases, the only human viewpoint we have on certain centuries. Also, its status in literature is assured as "the first continuous history written by Europeans in their own language."