¹ The most detailed discussion of East Saxon history to date is Chadwick, H. M., Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions (Cambridge, 1905), pp. 275–80.Google Scholar

² HE (= Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, ed. Colgrave, B. and Mynors, R. A. B. (Oxford, 1969))Google Scholar 11. 3 and 111.30; see also below, pp. 17–18 and 20.

³ E.g., Finberg, H. P. R., The Formation of England 500–1042 (St Albans, 1974), p. 45.Google Scholar

⁴ E.g., Wood, I. N., ‘Kings, Kingdoms and Consent’, Early Medieval Kingship, ed. Sawyer, P. and Wood, I. N. (Leeds, 1977), pp. 6–29, at 20.Google Scholar

⁵ Bede also records that Berhtwold was elected archbishop of Canterbury in 692 while Wihtred and Swæfheard were ruling in Kent (HE v. 8), but he does not identify Swæfheard as a member of the East Saxon royal house; see below, p. 21.

⁶ The conversion of Peada is dated to 653 in the epitome (HE v. 24). Other East Saxon dates can be placed within a certain date range; see Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica, ed. Plummer, Charles, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1896) 11, 88 and 176Google Scholar; and see below, pp. 17–24.

⁷ One could argue that Offa was the last East Saxon king named by Bede, but there are indications that Offa was not of the same status as the other East Saxons to whom Bede refers; see below, pp. 22–3.

⁸ Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, ed. Plummer, Charles, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1892–1899) 1, 20–1 and 40–1.Google Scholar

⁹ Ibid. 1, 46–7.

¹⁰ Ibid. 1, 56.

¹¹ Ibid. 1, 60–1 (s.a. 823), 62–3 (s.a. 836).

¹² Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia ed. Arnold, T., 2 vols., Rolls Ser. (London, 1882–1885) 11, 32Google Scholar; the annals are preserved in that part of the Historia Regum which is now regarded as a compilation by Byrhtferth of Ramsey; see Lapidge, M., ‘Byrhtferth of Ramsey and the Early Sections of the Historia Regum attributed to Symeon of Durham’, ASE 10 (1982), 97–122.Google Scholar

¹³ See Ker, N. R., Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957), no. 127 (p. 160)Google Scholar; see also Dumville, D. N., ‘The West Saxon Genealogical Regnal List: Manuscripts and Texts’, Anglia (forthcoming)Google Scholar, which includes a facsimile of iv.

¹⁴ See Das altenglische Martyrologium, ed. Kotzor, G., 2 vols., Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Abhandlungen, phil.-hist. Klasse n.s. 88 (Munich, 1981).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ker, , Catalogue, p. 160.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Neither the origin nor the provenance of the manuscript is known. A note merely records that it was ‘received from the Dept. of Printed Books 31. Dec. 1859’. It is not certain how much has been lost at the bottom of the page. The tops of the letters of the next line can just be glimpsed at the bottom of the manuscript.

¹⁷ The correcting hand has a number of features which distinguish it from the main hand: a is open-topped rather than closed; final minims of n and m turn outwards; u is written in that form rather than as v. The second hand also used a more acidic ink.

¹⁸ It is appropriate to note here that there is no East Saxon entry in the so-called Anglian collection ed. Dumville, D. N., ‘The Anglian Collection of Royal Genealogies and Regnal Lists’, ASE 5 (1976), 23–50Google Scholar, although the West Saxons are included. All the pedigrees of the Anglian collection trace the descent of their kings from Woden, but there is no other obvious link between them. Dumville, D. N., ‘Kingship, Genealogies and Regnal Lists’, Early Medieval Kingship, ed. Sawyer, and Wood, , pp. 72–104, at 79Google Scholar, proposed that ‘descent from Woden expresses an Anglian origin, or perhaps – more cautiously – belief in an Anglian origin. When extended to non-Anglian peoples, it reflects a political link: in this case subjection to Anglian (Northumbrian or Mercian) overlordship.’ The East Saxons were subject to both Northumbrian and Mercian overlordship; yet their pedigrees have escaped similar ‘Anglianization’.

¹⁹ Dr Cyril Hart originally published his study of the Barking material in The Early Charters of Barking Abbey (Colchester, 1953)Google Scholar, which was subsequently reprinted in a revised form in The Early Charters of Eastern England, Stud. in Early Eng. Hist. 5 (Leicester, 1966)Google Scholar. Professor Whitelock reviewed the Barking charters in Some Anglo-Saxon Bishops of London, Chambers Memorial Lecture 1974 (London, 1975), pp. 6–9.Google Scholar

²⁰ S(= Sawyer, P. H., Anglo-Saxon Charters: an Annotated List and Bibliography, R. Hist. Soc. Guides and Handbooks 8 (London, 1968)) 1171Google Scholar; ptd BCS (=Birch, W. deG., Cartularium Saxonicum, 3 vols. and index (1885–1899)) 1, 81Google Scholar; see also Hart, , Early Charters of Eastern England, pp. 127–35Google Scholar, and Scharer, A., Die angelsächische Königsurkunde im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert, Veröffentlichungen der Institut für osterreichische Geschichtsforschung 26 (Vienna, 1982), 129–33.Google Scholar

²¹ See Lowe, E. A., English Uncial (Oxford, 1960), p. 21Google Scholar, and Bruckner, A. and Marichal, R., Chartae Latinae Antiquiores 111 (Olten and Lausanne, 1963), no. 187.Google Scholar

²² Chaplais, P., ‘Some Early Anglo-Saxon Diplomas on Single Sheets: Originals or Copies?’, Jnl of the Soc. of Archivists 3 (1965–1969), 315–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 327–32.

²³ Ibid. p. 332 suggests that Sæbbi's first subscription was originally part of the otherwise incomplete corroboration clause.

²⁴ The witnesses who are West Saxon, or who have West Saxon connections, are: Hædde, fifth bishop of Wessex (676–705); Wilfrid of York, who was in Wessex c. 681–686/7; Abbot Hagona, who witnessed two grants of Cædwalla (S 233 and 235); and Abbot Ecgbald, who was probably abbot of Hoo in Kent and the recipient of S 233. Scharer, , Die angelsächische Königsurkunde, p. 133Google Scholar, suggests that Œthelred was sub-king of Surrey.

²⁵ S 1246 (BCS 87); also ptd and discussed Hart, , Early Charters of Eastern England, pp. 122–7.Google Scholar

²⁶ In this charter Barking is also said to have received a grant of ten manentes, supra vicum Lundoniœ, from Quoengytha. The name of her husband is given only as ‘ … aldi’ in Joscelyn's transcript, and she cannot now be identified. A record of the grant to Barking of land at Battersea also survives independently: it is S 1248 (BCS 82), also ptd and discussed Hart, Early Charters of Eastern England, pp. 135–45.

²⁷ BL Cotton Vespasian A. ix, fols. 112–13. All other surviving versions are copies of this transcription.

²⁸ See Whitelock, , Some Anglo-Saxon Bishops of London, pp. 6–7Google Scholar, esp. 7, n. 1.

²⁹ E.g., the forms Ædilred, Œdilred and Suidfrid.

³⁰ S 65 (BCS 111), dated 13 June 704; for the date of the hand, see Bruckner and Marichal, , Chartae Latinae Antiquiores, no. 188.Google Scholar The estate was in the possession of Christ Church in the 830s (S 1414); see also Brooks, N., The Early History of the Church of Canterbury: Christ Church from 597 to 1066 (Leicester, 1984), pp. 141–2.Google Scholar

³¹ See Early Charters of the Cathedral Church of St Paul, London, ed. M. Gibbs, Camden 3 rd ser. 58 (London 1939) vii–x and 1–8.Google Scholar Gibbs numbers the charters J. 1–J. 18; see also S 1783–96.

³² S 1784 (J. 9).

³³ S 1787 (J. 11).

³⁴ S 1785 (J. 6).

³⁵ S 1791 (J. 16).

³⁶ S 10 (BCS 42).

³⁷ S 11 (BCS 41); see below, pp. 21–2.

³⁸ S 13 (BCS 35) and S 14 (BCS 40). S 12 (BCS 73) is Oswine's only other surviving charter, but it was not witnessed by Swæfheard.

³⁹ Historia Monasterii S. Augustini Cantuariensis by Thomas of Elmham, ed. C. Hardwick, Rolls Ser. (London, 1858).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ BL Cotton Julius D. ii (written towards the middle of the thirteenth century) and London, Public Record Office E 164/27 (written in a succession of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century hands); see, further, Davis, G. R. C., Medieval Cartularies of Great Britain: a Short Catalogue (London, 1958), nos. 192 and 195.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Historia Monasterii S. Augustini, ed. Hardwick, p. 237.

⁴² S 10 and S 13.

⁴³ See Harrison, K., The Framework of Anglo-Saxon History to AD 900 (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 142–50Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Scharer, , Die angelsächische Königsurkunde, pp. 71–85.Google Scholar Although Scharer believes that the charters have a genuine base, he has reservations about them being seen as authentic texts of the seventh century.

⁴⁵ S 64.

⁴⁶ They include Ecgwine, bishop of Worcester (ob. 717), and Æthelweard, Æthelberht and Æthelric of the Hwicce, none of whom appears in charters of Offa of Mercia.

⁴⁷ BL Cotton Tiberius A. xiii and Cotton Nero E. i, pt 2; see Davis, , Medieval Cartularies, p. 123.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Finberg, H. P. R., The Early Charters of the West Midlands, 2nd edn, Stud. in Early Engl. Hist. 2 (Leicester, 1972), 181–3Google Scholar, finds the explanation in Offa's supposed Hwiccian mother who is considered below (see below n. 107). In S 1785 Bishop Tyrhtil of Hereford is shown to have possessed an estate in Middlesex.

⁴⁹ See, further, below, pp. 25–6.

⁵⁰ See below, p. 34.

⁵¹ Willelmi Malmesbiriensis Monachi De Gestis Regum Anglorum, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols., Rolls Ser. (London, 1887–1889) 1, 98–9.Google Scholar

⁵² See Monumenta Historica Britannica, ed. Petrie, H. and Sharpe, J. (London, 1848), pp. 522–644Google Scholar (up to 1000 only), at 629 and 636–7, and Florentii Wigorniensis Monachi Chronicon ex Chronicis, ed. Thorpe, B., 2 vols. (London, 1848) 1, 250 and 262–4.Google Scholar Thorpe's edition is largely based on that of Petrie; neither is satisfactory, and a new edition is currently being prepared by Dr P. McGurk, incorporating work done on the text by the late Professor Darlington. Until this work is completed we cannot be sure of the relative roles of Florence and John of Worcester in the preparation of Chronicon. For the most recent assessments, see Brett, M., ‘John of Worcester and his Contemporaries’, The Writing of History in the Middle Ages: Essays presented to R. W. Southern, ed. Davis, R. H. C. and Wallace-Hadrill, J. M. (Oxford, 1981), pp. 101–25Google Scholar, and Darlington, R. R. and McGurk, P., ‘The “Chronicon ex Chronicis” of “Florence” of Worcester and its Use of Sources for English History before 1066’, Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1982, ed. Brown, R. A., Anglo-Norman Stud. 5 (Woodbridge, 1983), 185–96.Google Scholar In this article I take the Chronicon material from Oxford, Corpus Christi College 157, p. 49; this manuscript is the ancestor of the other four surviving Chronicon manuscripts; see Darlington and McGurk, “Chronicon ex Chronicis”, p. 185.

⁵³ The lives are reviewed Lapidge, M., ‘The Medieval Hagiography of St Ecgwine’, Vale of Evesham Historical Society Research Papers 6 (1977), 77–93.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ They may have both used materials preserved at Worcester. William visited Worcester between c. 1113 and 1124, when he was collecting material for his Life of Wulfstan, and is known to have made use of various sources from Worcester in his Gesta Pontificum and elsewhere in the Gesta Regum; see The Vita Wulfstani of William of Malmesbury, ed. R. R. Darlington, Camden 3rd ser. 40 (London, 1928), ix–xviiiGoogle Scholar; Brett, ‘John of Worcester’, pp. 102 and 113–17; and Darlington and McGurk, “Chronicon ex Chronicis”, p. 188.

⁵⁵ Petrie and Thorpe are wrong to show Sæbbi as son of Sæward: Oxford, Corpus Christi College 157 (above, n. 52) quite clearly shows Sæbbi as the son of Sæward's brother, Seaxred.

⁵⁶ Chronicon B thus preserves the spelling of Chronicon A. Gesta has Ricula, which is the form of HE 11.3.

⁵⁷ Presumably it was intended to be added later. Other additions to Chronicon B identify Sledd as primus rex, Saberht as secundus rex, Seaxred and Sæward as pagani, and Sæbbi as sanctus.

⁵⁸ If Gesta and Chronicon A had drawn upon a table like that of Chronicon B, the mistakes could have been a simple error in misreading the connecting lines.

⁵⁹ Evidence for the early years of Mercia and East Anglia in these works is discussed in Davies, W., ‘Annals and the Origins of Mercia’, Mercian Studies, ed. Dornier, A. (Leicester, 1977), pp. 17–29.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Henrici Archidiaconi Huntendunensis Historia Anglorum, ed. T. Arnold, Rolls Ser. (London, 1879)Google Scholar. For the date, see Gransden, A., Historical Writing in England c. 550 to c. 1307 (London, 1974), pp. 193–200.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Rogeri de Wendover Chronica sive Flores Historiarum, ed. H. O. Coxe, 4 vols. and appendix (London, 1841–1844)Google Scholar. For Roger's relationship to Henry of Huntingdon, see Davies, ‘Annals’, p. 18.

⁶² Matthaei Parisiensis, Monachi Sancti Albani Chronica Majora, ed. H. R. Luard, 7 vols., Rolls Ser. (London, 1872–1884).Google Scholar

⁶³ Flores Historiarum, ed. H. R. Luard, 3 vols., Rolls Ser. (London, 1890).Google Scholar For the relationship between Matthew and Roger, see Vaughan, R., Matthew Paris, Cambridge, Stud. in Med. Life and Thought 2nd ser. 6 (Cambridge, 1958), 21–34.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Historia Anglorum, ed. Arnold, p. 49, Flores Historiarum, ed. Coxei, 68, Chronica Majora, ed. Luard 1, 238; and Flores Historiarum ed. Luard 1, 268. See below, p. 14, for the whole pedigree and fuller discussion.

⁶⁵ Flores Historiarum, ed. Coxe 1, 348, Chronica Majora ed. Luard 1, 423, and Flores Historiarum, ed. Luard 1, 465. In all the works the East Saxon lists are part of larger collections of Anglo-Saxon king-lists. The Register of Walter of Whittesley contains a version of an East Saxon regnal list which seems to be derived from those of Matthew. It is printed in The Chronicle of Hugh Candidus, a Monk of Peterborough, ed. W. T. Mellows (Oxford, 1949), p. 142,Google Scholar n. 2.

⁶⁶ Historia Anglorum, ed. Arnold, p. 65.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Flores Historiarum, ed. Coxe 1, 68, Chronica Majora, ed. Luard 1, 238, and Flores Historiarum, ed. Luard i, 268. The date isalso to be found in the Register of Walter of Whittesley (see above n. 65). Henry (Historia Anglorum ed. Arnold, p. 49) refers to the accession of Erkenwine and places it between the battles of Certicesford and Wihtgaresburg (battles dated 527 and 530 in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle).

⁶⁸ Flores Historiarum, ed. Coxei, 93, Chronica Majora ed. Luard 1, 253, and Flores Historiarum, ed. Luard 1, 282. The birth of Saberht is recorded s.a. 589 in Flores Historiarum, ed, Coxe 1, 94, Chronica Majora ed. Luard 1, 253, and Flores Historiarum, ed. Luard 1, 283.

⁶⁹ Flores Historiarum, ed. Coxe 1, 124, Chronica Majora, ed. Luard 1, 272, and Flores Historiarum, ed. Luard 1, 302.

⁷⁰ Flores Historiarum, ed. Coxe i, 176, Chronica Majora, ed. Luard 1, 305, and Flores Historiarum, ed. Luard 1, 339.

⁷¹ Flores Historiarum, ed. Coxe 1, 203; Chronica Majora, ed. Luard 1, 323, and Flores Historiarum, ed. Luard 1, 360.

⁷² Flores Historiarum, ed. Coxe 1, 276; Chronica Majora, ed. Luard 1, 374–5 and Flores Historiarum, ed. Luard 1, 414. Matthew reads ‘Swithed’, as in Gesta.

⁷³ Ptd Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia, ed. Arnold 11, 365–84, at 380. The Libellus was used in the compilation of The Chronicle Attributed to John ofWallingford, ed. R. Vaughan, Camden Miscellany 21, Camden 3rd ser. 90 (London, 1958)Google Scholar, which contains the same East Saxon information.

⁷⁴ See above, p. 3.

⁷⁵ The lost Life of St Æthelburh of Barking has already been mentioned (above, p. 2). The learned nuns of Barking to whom Aldhelm dedicated his De Virginitate may have produced other literary or historical works (see Aldhelm: the Prose Works, trans. M. Lapidge and M. Herren (Ipswich and Totowa, NJ, 1979), pp. 51–135)Google Scholar. The charter extracts are all that survive from St Paul's for the pre-Viking period, in spite of some notable bishops of London; see Whitelock, , Some Anglo-Saxon Bishops of London, passim. Cedd's foundations of Ythancaestir (Bradwell-on-sea)Google Scholar and Tilbury have left no known written records (HE 111. 22).

⁷⁶ See above, pp. 9–10.

⁷⁷ See above, n. 64, for references.

⁷⁸ The variants are listed by Sisam, K., ‘Anglo-Saxon Royal Genealogies’, PBA 39 (1953), 287–348, at 323–5 and 303–22.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ ‘End ec forsacho allum dioboles uuercum and uuordum thunaer ende uuoden ende saxnote …’, ptd Capitularia Regum Francorum 1, ed. A. Boretius, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Legum sectio 11 (Hanover, 1883), 22Google Scholar (no. 107). A facsimile of the manuscript is to be found in Hodgkin, R. H., A History of the Anglo-Saxons, 3rd ed., 2 vols. (Oxford, 1952) 1, 302.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Chadwick, H. M., The Origin of the English Nation (Cambridge, 1907), p. 60,Google Scholar and Davidson, H. R. Ellis, Cods and Myths of Northern Europe (Harmondsworth, 1964), pp. 54–61.Google Scholar

⁸¹ For views on the circumstances which may have affected the construction of the West Saxon genealogies, see Sisam, ‘Anglo-Saxon Royal Genealogies’, pp. 300–22, and Dumville, ‘Kingship, Genealogies and Regnal Lists’, pp. 78–81.

⁸² M. U. Jones, ‘Mucking and Early Saxon Rural Settlement in Essex’, and Jones, W. T., ‘Early Saxon Cemeteries in Essex’, Archaeology in Essex to AD 1500, ed. Buckley, D. G., CBA Research Report 34 (London, 1980), 82–6 and 87–95.Google Scholar

⁸³ See below, pp. 22–3. Œthelred appears to be another exception, but it is not certain that he had the status of king.

⁸⁴ Dumville, ‘The Anglian Collection’, pp. 30–7.

⁸⁵ Sisam, ‘Anglo-Saxon Royal Genealogies’, pp. 306–7. The Mercian pedigree also includes Offa of Angeln's father, Wermund. References to Offa of Angeln are conveniently brought together in Beowulf and its Analogues, trans. G. N. Garmonsway and J. Simpson (London, 1968), pp. 222–37.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Dumville, ‘Kingship, Genealogies and Regnal Lists’, pp. 82–96.

⁸⁷ See below, pp. 32–6.

⁸⁸ Two Saxon Chronicles, ed. Plummer 1, 12–15.

⁸⁹ Eorcenberht was king of Kent 640–64, and had a daughter called Eorcengota (HE 111. 8). The element may be Frankish in origin (cf. Ercunuald, mayor of Neustria, in HE 111. 19). Whitelock, , Some Anglo-Saxon Bishops of London, p. 5,Google Scholar proposed that Eorcenwald and his sister Æthelburh (also a Kentish name) were members of the Kentish royal house. While it is true that Egbert of Kent was probably the founder of Eorcenwald's monastery at Chertsey (see below, n. 183), Eorcenwald also received patronage from West Saxon and Mercian overlords, which he is less likely to have done if he was a member of the Kentish royal house. Perhaps his name and that of his sister should rather be seen as evidence for strong Kentish influence on the East Saxons at the beginning of the seventh century.

⁹⁰ See above, nn. 67 and 68.

⁹¹ Davies, ‘Annals and the Origin of Mercia’, pp. 17–29.

⁹² See above, n. 82.

⁹³ HE 11. 3; and see below, p. 17.

⁹⁴ On the possibility of confusion, see Dumville, ‘Kingship, Genealogies and Regnal Lists’, pp. 96–7.

⁹⁵ See below, pp. 31–6.

⁹⁶ Baedae Optra Historica, ed Plummer 11, 88.

⁹⁷ See above, n. 69, for reference. Mellitus's expulsion cannot have occurred later than January 918 (see above, n. 96). It is possible that Bede telescoped the expulsion and the defeat in battle to make the one the result of the other.

⁹⁸ Chadwick, , Studies, p. 276.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰⁰ See above, pp. 9–10.

¹⁰¹ The use of such hypocoristic forms among the East Saxons is supported by HE 11. 5, where we are told that Saberht's sons referred to their father as ‘Saba’.

¹⁰² Chadwick, , Studies, p. 276.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ S 1246; see above, pp. 5–6.

¹⁰⁴ Swithfrith's donation is listed first in S 1246, though the grants are not in strict chronological order, as a grant of Æthelred of Mercia is listed before one of Wulfhere. A late medieval endorsement to Œthelred's grant (S 1171) shows that it was regarded at that time as the foundation charter, but this may have been only because Œthelred's original charter survived and Swithfrith's did not. Œthelred's charter shows that the monastery was already in existence when his grant was made and was known as Beddanham: Swithfrith had granted land called Bercingas and Beddanham.

¹⁰⁵ See Hart, , Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 117.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Whitelock, , Some Anglo-Saxon Bishops of London, p. 7Google Scholar, n. 5, proposed that Suidfrid was an error for Sæbbi's son, Swæfred, but the names appear quite distinct.

¹⁰⁷ Hohler, C., ‘St Osyth and Aylesbury’, Records of Buckinghamshire 18. 1 (1966), 61–72Google Scholar, discusses the extant lives of St Osyth. According to the legend, Osyth was murdered by Danish pirates at Chich in Essex in 653. She is described as the daughter of Frithewald (perhaps to be identified with the subregulus of Surrey of S 1165) and Wilteburga. At their instigation she married Sigerus of the East Saxons in spite of her desire to become a nun, and eventually escaped to enter the religious life with the aid of Baduwine and Ecci, bishops of the East Angles. Sigerus eventually gave her the estate at Chich for a nunnery. The acounts of her life suggest that few reliable details about Osyth were preserved at Chich or at any of the other foundations connected with her. Finberg, , Early Charters of the West Midlands, pp. 181–3Google Scholar, argues that Osyth was really a Hwiccian princess. His case is largely based on the fact that Offa of the East Saxons, who was a son of Sigehere and so could be presumed to be a son of Osyth as well, granted land in Warwickshire (S 64) and was claimed by the Evesham Chronicle to be related to King Æthelheard of the Hwicce. However, no written source claims Osyth as the mother of Offa, and even the claim that she was the wife of Sigehere seems doubtful.

¹⁰⁸ S 233, a grant from Cædwalla to Abbot Ecgbald of land at Hooin Kent, which is preserved in a Peterborough cartulary. Stenton, F. M., ‘Medehamstede and its Colonies’, Preparatory to Anglo-Saxon England: being the Collected Papers of Frank Merry Stenton, ed. Stenton, D. M. (Oxford, 1970), pp. 179–92, at 189–90Google Scholar, argues that the text is a conflation of ‘a number of short and ancient documents’.

¹⁰⁹ See below, pp. 32–3.

¹¹⁰ See Baedae Opera Historica, ed. Plummer 11, 176 and 220.

¹¹¹ S 1171; and see above, p. 5.

¹¹² S 1246; and see above, pp. 5–6.

¹¹³ Swæfheard's name appears in the following forms: Suabhard (S 10); Suebard S 13; Suebhard (S 14); Suebeard (S 253); Suaebhard (HE v. 8). Swæfred's name also appears in a variety of forms: Suefred (HE iv. 11); Suebred (S 1787 and 1171); Sueabraed (S 65).

¹¹⁴ S 10 is dated to the second year of Swæfheard's reign, the fourth indiction. Whitelock has argued (Harrison, Framework, pp. 142–4) that the most likely date for the charter is 690 (the third indiction), thus placing Swæfheard's accession in 688 or 689. Swæfheard refers in this charter to the consent of Sæbbi and Æthelred. Swæfheard could claim descent from the Kentish royal house on the female side through Saberht's mother, Ricula.

¹¹⁵ Oswine was a member of the Kentish royal house, but not regarded in some quarters as eligible for the throne; see B. A. E. Yorke, ‘Joint Kingship in Kent c. 560 to 785’, AC 99 (1983), 1–19, at 8. S 13 shows that 690 was also the second year of Oswine's reign, and he presumably came to the throne at the same time as Swæfheard.

¹¹⁶ Bede says that Wihtred died on 23 April 725 after a reign of thirty-four and a half years (HE v. 23).

¹¹⁷ The Chronicle places Wihtred's accession in 694 (Two Saxon Chronicles, ed. Plummer 1, 40–1), but, as we know that Wihtred was ruling with Swæfheard before this date (HE v. 8), it is likely that 694 marks the beginning of Wihtred's reign as sole king in Kent (see Baedae Opera Historica, ed. Plummer 11, 284).

¹¹⁸ Unless he is Sabertus who witnesses S 12, a grant from King Oswine to St Peter's, Canterbury, which was issued in 689. Two of the other witnesses to the grant witnessed Suabertus's own grant (S 10). Sabertus does not have a title, but neither Swæfheard nor Oswine used titles when witnessing each other's grants.

¹¹⁹ Historia Monasterii S. Augustini, ed. Hardwick, pp. 232–8.

¹²⁰ E.g., Sawyer, , Anglo-Saxon Charters, p. 73,Google Scholar and Harrison, Framework of Anglo-Saxon History, pp. 142–3.

¹²¹ See above, p. 5.

¹²² S 1785. We do not know when Sigeheard and Swæfred ceased to rule, or whether they continued to rule after Offa's departure, or whether their reigns overlapped with that of Selered.

¹²³ S 65.

¹²⁴ S 1787. The charter cannot be dated closely, owing to the obscurity of Swæfred's and Ingwald's dates.

¹²⁵ Offa is described as ‘a youth so loveable and handsome that the whole race longed for him to have and to hold the sceptre of the kingdom’ (iuuenis amantissimae aetatis et venustatis, totaeque suae genti ad tenenda seruandaque regni sceptra exoptatissimus) (HE v. 19).

¹²⁶ S 1784.

¹²⁷ S 64; and see above, pp. 7–8.

¹²⁸ See below, pp. 25–6.

¹²⁹ Two Saxon Chronicles ed. Plummer 1, 46–7.

¹³⁰ See above, p. 18.

¹³¹ S 87. The remission applies to anywhere in the kingdom, but presumably the abbess was most likely to want to make use of London.

¹³² This is another example of the way in which Gesta and Chronicon A interpret their common source slightly differently; see above, pp. 9–10.

¹³³ See above, n. 12, for reference.

¹³⁴ See above, pp. 12–13, and n. 73.

¹³⁵ See above, p. 36, and n. 72

¹³⁶ See above, n. 10.

¹³⁷ S 151. This charter is of dubious authenticity. The estate granted at Rickmansworth (Herts.) would at one time at least have been in East Saxon territory. This grant and another in the name of Ecgfrith to St Albans (S 150) includes among the witnesses a Sigehere, son of Sigehere.

¹³⁸ S 165 and 168.

¹³⁹ S 170.

¹⁴⁰ S 187.

¹⁴¹ The charter of Ceolwulf referred to in the previous note was witnesed by Sigered dux immediately after Sigered subregulus.

¹⁴² The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 825, describes the submission of the East Saxons together with the people of Kent and Surrey and the South Saxons after the battle of Ellendun. These people are said to have been wrongly forced away from Egbert's kinsmen, possibly a reference to the overlordship of Cædwalla and Ine of these provinces; see Two Saxon Chronicles, ed. Plummer 1, 60–1.

¹⁴³ S 1791. It has been suggested (Early Charters of St Paul's, ed. Gibbs, p. 7, n. 2) that Sigric is an error for Sigered, but such an interpretation seems unwarranted.

¹⁴⁴ Dumville, ‘Kingship, Genealogies and Regnal Lists’, pp. 96–102. None of the surviving regnal lists shows joint reigns.

¹⁴⁵ Brothers ruling jointly are known from the kingdoms of the Hwicce (see Finberg, , Early Charters of the West Midlands, pp. 167–80Google Scholar) and Kent (see Yorke, ‘Joint Kingship in Kent’, 1–19). The sons of Æthelfrith and Oswiu of Bernicia and of Æthelwulf of Wessex are examples of brothers reigning successively.

¹⁴⁶ See below, pp. 32–4.

¹⁴⁷ As, e.g., the joint kings of the Hwicce and of Kent did; see above, n. 145.

¹⁴⁸ S 64; and see above, pp. 7–8.

¹⁴⁹ Royal titles were not always used. Swæfheard and Oswine of Kent did not use them when witnessing each other's charters (Sio and 13–14).

¹⁵⁰ On the problems of terminology and of varieties of rulership within a single kingdom, see Campbell, J., Bede's ‘Reges’ and ‘Principes’, Jarrow Lecture 1979 (Jarrow, 1980).Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Æthelfrith of Bernicia and Penda of Mercia provide two of the best-recorded examples.

¹⁵² In Mercia, Northumbria and Kent, the commonest pattern of succession was fora king to be succeeded by his brother, son or nephew. Cenred of Mercia was succeeded by his cousin, Ceolred, but the two did not, of course, rule jointly. In Wessex, where the kingship system seems to have had the closest parallels to that of the East Saxons, distant cousins did succeed one another, especially after the death of Cenwealh (672), but joint chief kings were rare after this date in Wessex.

¹⁵³ The emergence in the eighth century of royal branch lines which had apparently been excluded from the throne in the seventh century is also to be found in Mercia and Northumbria.

¹⁵⁴ Dumville, ‘Kingship, Genealogies and Regnal Lists’, pp. 90–3.

¹⁵⁵ The closest parallel is from Wessex, where the various branches of the royal house chose names beginning with ‘C’ up to the middle of the seventh century, when the practice was abandoned.

¹⁵⁶ Brooke, C. N. L. and Keir, G., London, 800–1216: the Shaping of a City (London, 1975), pp.16–17Google Scholar; see also Hill, D., An Atlas of Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford, 1981), p. 80.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ The earliest reference to Hertfordshire is in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 1011 (Two Saxon Chronicles, ed. Plummer 11, 141). Its creation presumably followed Edward the Elder's reconquest of the area from the Danes.

¹⁵⁸ The land was granted by Offa of the East Saxons to Bishop Waldhere (S 1784).

¹⁵⁹ The land was leased by Bishop Ceolbeorht to King Sigeric (S 1791).

¹⁶⁰ Hart, C., ‘The Tribal Hidage’, TRHS 5th ser. 21 (1971), 153–57, at 146 and 151.Google Scholar On the problems of identifying the territories of the peoples listed in the Tribal Hidage, see W. Davies and Vierck, H., ‘The Contexts of Tribal Hidage: Social Aggregates and Settlement Patterns’, FS 8 (1974), 223–93.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Their separate inclusion in the Tribal Hidage shows that they were considered independent of the East Saxons when it was compiled, probably in the late seventh century. For different views on the date, see Hart, ‘Tribal Hidage’, pp. 133–5 and 157, and Davies and Vierck, ‘Contexts of Tribal Hidage’, pp. 225–7.

¹⁶² S 65; and see above, p. 6. The province is also referred to in S 100(716–57), 5106 (767) and S 119 (ptd Gelling, M., The Early Charters of the Thames Valley, Stud. in Early Eng. Hist. 7 (Leicester, 1979), 99–100)Google Scholar, a charter of Offa of Mercia. The charter of 704 shows that the name ‘Middle Saxons’ was in use before Middlesex was transferred to Mercia; see below, p. 30).

¹⁶³ Gover, J. E. B., Mawer, A., Stenton, F. M. and Bonner, A., The Place-Names of Surrey, EPNS 11 (Cambridge, 1934), xiii.Google Scholar Archaeological evidence stresses the close ties of the people on the north and south banks of the Thames in the early Saxon period; see Hawkes, S. Chadwick, ‘Anglo-Saxon Kent, c. 425–725’, Archaeology in Kent to AD 1500, ed. Leach, P., CBA Research Report 48 (London, 1982), 64–78.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ Whitelock, , Some Anglo-Saxon Bishops of London, pp. 4–11Google Scholar; and see below, pp. 33–4. That Surrey was no longer considered part of East Saxon territory when Bede wrote the Historia Ecclesiastica is shown by the careful way in which he distinguished between Barking in Orienlalium Saxonum provincia and Eorcenwald's other foundation of Chertsey in regione Sudergeona (HE iv. 6).

¹⁶⁵ This is the most likely reason for the battle which led to the deaths of Saberht's sons (HE 11. 5), and for the disputes between East and West Saxons referred to in Waldhere's letter; see below, p. 34 and n. 196.

¹⁶⁶ S 233; and see above, n. 108.

¹⁶⁷ See nn. 114 and 115.

¹⁶⁸ In Sio and 12; however, Scharer, , Die angelsächische Königsurkunde, pp. 80–3Google Scholar, questions whether the two references to Æthelred's supremacy have any historical validity.

¹⁶⁹ See above, n. 117.

¹⁷⁰ S 10.

¹⁷¹ Chadwick, , Studies, p. 277.Google Scholar

¹⁷² Œthelred could have been subregulus of Surrey when he made his grant of land to Barking (S 1171); see Scharer, , Die angelsächische Königsurkunde, p. 133.Google Scholar

¹⁷³ S 1784.

¹⁷⁴ S 1787.

¹⁷⁵ Reaney, P. H., The Place-Names of Essex, EPNS 12 (Cambridge, 1935), xxxi and 174.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ Other areas proposed as early territorial units in Essex include the large medieval parish of Barking and the area covered by the Rodings parishes; see Reaney, , Place-Names of Essex, pp. xii and xxii.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ The most instructive parallels seem to come from Wessex, where sub-kings may have originally controlled the shires; see Chadwick, , Studies, pp. 282–90.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁸ See below, p. 35.

¹⁷⁹ See HE 11. 3, for the building of St Paul's by Æthelberht and Whitelock, , Some Anglo-Saxon Bishops of London, p. 4Google Scholar, n. 2, for possible land grants from Æthelberht to St Paul's. In S 1786 Cenred of Mercia renewed the sanctio granted to St Paul's by its founder, Æthelberht.

¹⁸⁰ See above, p. 16.

¹⁸¹ See above, pp. 18–19.

¹⁸² Æthelwold would no doubt have wished to co-operate with the Northumbrians against the power of Penda, who had already killed three East Anglian kings (HE 111. 18). Ecgfrith of Northumbria was later to marry Æthelwold's niece, Æthelthryth, but this was after his accession in 670.

¹⁸³ The information is provided in Frithuwold's charter to Chertsey (S 1165).

¹⁸⁴ The role of Wulfhere is inferred from S 1165, which was issued by Frithuwald subregulus regis Wulfari Mercianorum. It is possible that the inference is incorrect and that Frithuwald was already ruling in Surrey before Wulfhere took over; if so, he would appear not to have been one of the East Saxon royal family who seem originally to have controlled the province.

¹⁸⁵ S 1246. Wulfhere is stated to have granted unius manens juxta Lundoniam. This does not sound a very generous grant, and it is possible that Joscelyn misread the Roman numeral (though if so he must have altered manentes to manens).

¹⁸⁶ Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. F. Liebermann, 3 vols. (Halle, 1903–1916) 1, 9–11Google Scholar; trans. English Historical Documents c. 500–1042, ed. D. Whitelock, 2nd edn (London, 1979), pp. 394–5Google Scholar (cited hereafter as EHD). The laws refer to a king's hall in London where Kentish citizens can vouch to warranty, and to a king's town reeve who can witness Kentish transactions.

¹⁸⁷ Cædwalla's and Mul's activities in Kent are described in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.aa. 686 and 687 (Two Saxon Chronicles, ed. Plummer 1, 38–9). The end of Eadric's reign is dated by Bede as one and a half years after the death of Hlothhere on 6 February 685 (HE iv. 26). Mul is described as king of Kent in S 10.

¹⁸⁸ The grant is included in S 1246, but also survives separately in the Westminster archives (S 1248); see Hart, Early Charters of Eastern England, pp. 136–41.

¹⁸⁹ S 1171; and see above, p. 5.

¹⁹⁰ The Farnham grant is S 235. For Eorcenwald and Cædwalla, see Whitelock, , Some Anglo-Saxon Bishops of London, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar For the ‘Eorcenwald group of charters’, see Scharer, , Die angelsächische Königsurkunde, pp. 129–41.Google Scholar

¹⁹¹ S 10 and 12; and see above, n. 168. Æthelred also confirmed an addition by Swæfheard to Cæsdwalla's grant of land at Hoo to Abbot Ecgbald (S 233), though the elaborate title afforded to Æthelred must cast doubt on the validity of the confirmation.

¹⁹² S 1246 records Æthelred's gift of estates at Isleworth in Middlesex, and Swanscombe and Erith in Kent, to Barking.

¹⁹³ S 1783.

¹⁹⁴ S 65.

¹⁹⁵ Liebermann, , Gesetze 1, 88,Google Scholar and EHD pp. 398–9. Ine's sister, Cuthburg, was a nun at Barking in the later seventh century; see Aldhelm: the Prose Works, trans. Lapidge and Herren, pp. 15,52 and 59.

¹⁹⁶ Chaplais, P., ‘The Letter from Bishop Wealdhere of London to Archbishop Brihtwold of Canterbury: the Earliest Original ‘Letter Close’ Extant in the West’, Medieval Scribes, Manuscripts and Libraries: Essays Presented to N. R. Ker, ed. Parkes, M. B. and Watson, A. G. (London, 1978), pp. 3–23.Google Scholar The text is translated in EHD, pp. 792–3.

¹⁹⁷ Whitelock, , Some Anglo-Saxon Bishops of London, pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁸ S 65.

¹⁹⁹ S 1785.

²⁰⁰ S 1787.

²⁰¹ For a general discussion of abdication for apparently religious purposes, see C. Stancliffe, ‘Kings who Opted Out’, Ideal and Reality in Prankish and Anglo-Saxon Society, ed. P.Wormald, with D. Bullough and R. Collins.

²⁰² Baedae Opera Historica, ed. Plummer 11, 154. (Oxford, 1983), pp. 154–76.Google Scholar

²⁰³ Æthelred ordered Cenred to accept the papal decrees concerning Wilfrid; see The Life of Bishop Wilfrid by Eddius Stephanas, ed. and trans. B. Colgrave (Cambridge, 1927)Google Scholar, ch. 57, pp. 124–5. Eddius claims in the same passage that Æthelred had made Cenred king at the time of his abdication, and Bede reiterates this in the recapitulatio (HE v. 24). Kings who retired to monasteries seem to have been able to nominate their heirs, and perhaps were considered not to have relinquished their secular role entirely; other examples include Sigeberht of the East Angles (HE 111. 18), and Ceolwulf and Eadberht of Northumbria (Baedae Continuation s.a. 737 and 758, in HE, pp. 572–5).

²⁰⁵ S 65.

²⁰⁶ See above, n. 131. Other grants of toll which are definitely for London and made by Æthelbald are S 86, 88, 91 (in which the port is not named, but the grant was made in London), 98 and 1788.

²⁰⁶ Middlesex: S 100, 106 and 119 (see above, n. 162), and 188. Hertfordshire: S 136 (agrant from Offa of Mercia to St Albans, which may have an authentic basis), 151 (a grant from Ecgfrith to St Albans which is probably spurious), and 1791 (discussed above, p. 24).

²⁰⁷ S 1787. However, the grant of Offa to Waldhere of land at Hemel Hempstead in Hertfordshire also has no reference to Mercian overlords (S 1784). See P. Wormald, ‘Bede, the Bretwaldas and the Origins of the Gens Anglorum,’ Ideal and Reality, ed. Wormald, pp. 114–17, for the limited control overlords had over native kings’ rights to grant land.

²⁰⁸ Metcalf, D. M., ‘Twelve Notes on Sceatta Finds,’ BNJ 46 (1976), 1–18, at 9–13.Google Scholar

²⁰⁹ See above, p. 24.

²¹⁰ For the Mercians as overlords of other small subject kingdoms, see Stenton, F. M., Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1971), pp. 45–6 and 208–9.Google Scholar

²¹¹ See above, p. 24.

²¹² Two of the Saxon Chronicles, ed. Plummer 1, 60–1 (825), 62–3 (839) and 66–7 (855).

²¹³ Whitelock, , Some Anglo-Saxon Bishops of London, pp. 15–16.Google Scholar There is only one possible West Saxon grant from former East Saxon territory: S 337 is a grant of land at Navestock in Essex apparently made by King Edgar and with Archbishop Odo as a witness. However, the other witnesses and the formulae seem to be of the time of Æthelred I, and the charter has been accepted, apart from the names of king and archbishop, as a genuine charter of Æthelred I; see Hart, C. R., The Early Charters of Essex, 2nd ed., Dept of Eng. Local Hist. Occasional Papers 10 (Leicester, 1971), no. 9 (pp. 10–11).Google Scholar

²¹⁴ I should like to thank Mr P. Wormald, Dr A. Smyth and Dr S. Keynes for their advice and corrections. Any errors remaining are purely my responsibility.