Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:19:42.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Monastic reform and the unification of tenth-century England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2016

Nicholas Banton
Nicholas Banton*
Affiliation:
Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A single kingdom of England was created in the tenth century. While the military successes of king Alfred and his son king Edward the Elder had established some authority over all the English kingdoms for the West Saxon kings, their claims could be only tentative. Both kings had governed Wessex during the lifetimes of Aethelred and Aethelflaed, the rulers of Mercia, and Athelstan was probably the first West Saxon king to be crowned king of Mercia at his accession. He had been separately acclaimed king of Mercia and of Wessex, and in a contemporary text he is recorded as Rex Angulsaxonum et Mercianorum. The coronation rite used by the early tenth century kings appears to have endowed them with the government of three peoples, the Saxons, the Mercians, and the Northumbrians. A charter of King Eadred at his accession in 946 describes his kingship as a fourfold office representing the Anglo-Saxons, the Northumbrians, the Danes and the Britons.’ Eadwig was separately chosen king in Mercia and in Wessex in 955, and during his reign his brother Edgar ruled Mercia, firstly as regulus, and then as full king.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Church History , Volume 18: Religion and National Identity , 1982 , pp. 71 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Robinson, [J. A.], [The Times of Saint] Dunstan (Oxford 1923) pp 28–36 Google Scholar; Bullough, [D. A.], ‘The Continental Background [of the Reform’,] T [enth] C[entury] S [tudies, ed Parsons, D.] (London 1975) p 34 Google Scholar.

2 [C. E.] Hohler, [‘Some Service Books of the Later Saxon Church’], TCS, pp 67-9.

3 S[awyer, [P. H.], Anglo-Saxon Charters: An Annotated List and Bibliography] (London 1968) no 520 Google Scholar.

4 Memorials [of Saint Dunstan, archbishop of Canterbury, ed Stubbs], W., RS, (1874) [p 32 Google Scholar; S no 633; [Two of the Saxon] Chronicles [Parallel, ed Earle, J. and Plummer, C.] 2 vols (Oxford 1892-9) 1 p 113 Google Scholar. The Worcester charter and the ‘D’ Chronicle suggest that Worcester documents (virtually the only midland source at this time) gave Edgar some royal status in Mercia from 955.

5 Chronicles 1 p 113; trans Whitelock, D., EHD 1 (2 ed 1979) p 225 Google Scholar.

6 Stenton, [F. M.], [Anglo-Saxon England] (3 ed Oxford 1970) pp 349-51Google Scholar; Keynes, [S.]. [The Diplomas of King Aethlred ‘the Unready’ 978-1016] (Cambridge 1908) 269-73Google Scholar.

7 S nos 409, 412, 423, 416, 417, 418, 422, 425, 379, 1604, 393, 410, 423, 453.

8 Compare Drögereit, [R.], ‘Gab es ein angelsächsische Königskanzlei?’, Archiv fur Urkundenforschung 13 (Berlin 1935) pp 361-9, 418-22Google Scholar; Bullough, , ‘The Educational Tradition [in England from Alfred to Aelfric: Teaching Utriusque Linguae]’, SSSpoleto, 19 (1972) pp 466-77Google Scholar; Chaplais, P., ‘The Origin and Authenticity of the Royal Anglo-Saxon Diploma’, JSArch, 3 (1965) pp 59–60 Google Scholar; Brooks, N. P., ‘Anglo-Saxon Charters: the work of the last twenty years’, A[nglo-] S[axon] E[ngland]. 3 (Cambridge 1974) p 218 Google Scholar; Keynes pp 21-26, 43-4.

9 S nos 412, 413, 416, 417, 418, 419, 422, 407, 425, 426, 458.

10 There are two apparent exceptions, S nos 518 and 539.

11 S nos 520, 544, 550, 556, 557, and see also no 633. These charters were first associated with Worcester in Drögereit, [R.], ‘Kaiseridee [und Kaisertitel bei den Angelsachsen]’ ZRC Gabt Abt, 69 (1952) pp 63, 67Google Scholar. See also Whitelock, , EHD, 1, pp 372-3Google Scholar; Sawyer, , Charters of Burton Abbey (Oxford 1979) pp XIVii–SIiX Google Scholar.

12 S nos 392, 520, 549, 550, 544, 548, 569, 572, and also no 566.

13 S nos 509, 546, 553, 555.

14 S no 546 (on this and other Glastonbury charters Chaplais, P. ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chancery: from the Diploma to the Writ’, JSArch, 3 (1966) pp 163-5)Google Scholar; Drögereit, ‘Kaiseridee’, pp 62, 65; Keynes, pp 46-8, 82.

15 Bullough, ‘The Educational Tradition’, pp 467-9; Lapidge, M. ‘The Hermeneutic Style in Tenth Century Anglo-Latin Literature’, ASE, 4 (1975) pp 67-111Google Scholar. On Conwald, see Robinson, Dunstan p 39.

16 The other abbots are included only in 959 (S nos 586, 658, 660, 673), and once in 963 (S no 708). The Ealdred of S no/675 may be a mistake by duplication for Aethelwold. Dunstan had witnessed some charters of Eadwig in 956 (S nos 582, 597. 633, 663).

17 HRH pp 38, 48, 56, 80-1. The tradition that Chertsey had monks from Abingdon before 964 is unjustified. The confusion stems from a later cartulary, summarised in VCH Surrey, 2, p 56.

18 To this number may be added Sideman who witnesses in 969 and then again in 972.

19 S nos 786, 788. Leofric replaces Sideman at Exeter. Sigegar follows Aelfstan at Glastonbury, and Aelfnoth (not Aethelnoth see S no 795) probably takes over from Aelfric at Saint Augustine’s Canterbury, HRH pp 35, 48, 50.

20 H[istorians of the] C[hurch of] Y[ork, ed Raine], J., 3 vols RS (1879) 1 pp 425-7Google Scholar. The Easter meeting could perhaps have taken place in 969 as many new abbots witness one charter (S/no/779) from an Easter gemot in 970, but is possible that these abbots were in fact appointed at the very assembly that set up the new houses.

21 Three Lives of English Saints, ed Winterbottom, M. (Toronto 1972) pp 24-5Google Scholar.

22 S nos/779, 780, 781; Liber Eliensis, [ed Blake, E. O.], CSer 3 ser 92 (1962) pp 74-8Google Scholar; HRH p 44.

23 S nos 782, 787 (see CS no 1258). The date 966 which is often given is simply a later confusion.

24 S no 792. The date of Crowland Abbey is impossible to establish as all the early charters are forgeries, but see HRH p 44.

25 See S nos 370, 745, 786 for Winchester and Pershore, and Galbraith, V. H., ‘Monastic Foundation Charters of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries’, CHJ, 4 (1934) pp 205-22, 296-8Google Scholar.

26 HRH pp 46, 58, 102. Aelfheah who witnesses from 970 was from Deerhurst and not Bath (as given in HRH pp 27-8). He must have been at Deerhurst when he was called to the deathbed of Foldbriht at the nearby abbey of Pershore, and he is called abbot then in the life of Oswald, HCY, 1 p 439.

27 S no 798; C[hronicon Abbatiae] R[amesiensis, ed Macray, W.D], RS (1886) pp 40, 43-4Google Scholar. See Robinson, , Saint Oswald [and the Church of Worcester], British Academy, Supplemental Papers, (London 1919) pp 36–37 Google Scholar. The date 969 is added in the margin of only a fourteenth-century manuscript of the Ramsey Chronicle, which is in other respects less reliable than the main early copy, CR pp ix, 40.

28 HCY pp 427-34.

29 CR pp 29-30.

30 HCY p 434.

31 Robinson, Saint Oswald pp 18-20, 35-6; Sawyer, ‘[Charters of the Reform Movement, the] Worcester [Archive]’, TCS p 89. For a different approach to this and many other matters discussed here, see John, [E.], O[rbis] B[ritanniae] (Leicester, 1966)Google ScholarPubMed.

32 HCY I p 435; Robinson, Saint Oswald, p 37.

33 HCY I pp 423-5. This fact makes Eric John’s date for the Easter assembly (964) almost impossible, as Oswald does not sign charters as a bishop until 961. John, OB pp 249-64.

34 For other interpretations, John, OB pp 234-48; Sawyer, ‘Worcester’, p 89.

35 S nos 670, 1450; The Crawford Collection of Early Charters and Documents, ed Napier, A.S and Stevenson, W. H. (Oxford 1895) p 90 Google Scholar. Some late, related sources attempt to connect Dunstan’s involvement in the reform of Westminster with his short tenure of the see of London in 959, but there is no contemporary support for this; for the alternative view see Whitelock, D., Some Anglo-Saxon Bishops of London (London 1975) p 22 Google Scholar. All the contemporary evidence that connects Dunstan and Westminster relates to the period after his appointment to Canterbury, for instance S nos 670, 1447, 1451. Other bishops were involved in monasteries outside their dioceses, and the links between Christchurch, Canterbury, and Westminster Abbey in the late tenth century were very close involving the possible transfer of charters, calendars, psalters and pontificals, Korham-mer, P. M., ‘The Origin of the Bosworth Psalter’, ASE, 2 (1973) pp 173-87Google Scholar.

36 For the charter signature of Martin, Godwine, and Brihtheah, HRH pp 226-7.

37 S nos 782, 749 (possibly dated 972, see Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, p 36); Stenton pp 451-2.

38 Chronica Abbatiae de Evesham ad annum 1418, ed Macray, W. D., RS, (1863) pp 77-8Google Scholar; CR pp 29-30; Liber Eliensis, p 118.

39 The only midland abbot to witness charters in the 960s was Thurcytel head of the apparently unreformed house of Bedford, HRH p 30.

40 Florence of Worcester, Chronicon ex Chronicis, ed Thorpe, B., 2 vols (London 1848) 1 p 141 Google Scholar. As this is dated 969, it appears to prove that the Easter meeting took place in 969, but the date may be simply based on the Worcester tradition of the reform of the community subsequently mentioned in the annal. The tradition that Worcester was reformed in 969 is very unreliable, see Robinson, Saint Oswald pp 35-6.

41 EHD 1 p 921.

42 HCY 1 p 462; Whitelock, D., ‘The Dealings of the Kings of England with Northumbria in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries’, The Anglo-Saxons: Studies in some Aspects of their History and Culture presented to Bruce Dickins, ed Clemoes, P. (London 1959) p 76 Google Scholar. This reform cannot refer to Worcester because the eius looks back to Wilfrid, and as Worcester has not been mentioned for many pages of the text, it can hardly be assumed as by John, OB pp 244, 258-9.

43 Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, ed Whitelock, D. 3 ed London 1963) pp 41-2Google Scholar.

44 Eadulf of Bemicia and Malcolm of Strathclydc witness a diploma of Easter 970, S no 779. In August 970 bishop Aelfsige of Chester-le-Street was in Dorset, presumably waiting on the king although he does not witness any surviving charters from that year, The Durham Ritual, ed Brown, T.J (Copenhagen 1969) p 24 Google Scholar.

45 Liebermann, [F., Die] Gesetze [der Angelsachsen] 3 vols (Halle 1903-16) 1 pp 206–215 Google Scholar; Hart, C. R., ‘Athelstan “Half-King” and his family’, ASE, 2 (1973) p 133 Google Scholar.

46 Gesetze I pp 206-7. For the dates of Oscytel’s death and Oswald’s appointment, see Symeon of Durham, Opera Omnia, ed Arnold, T., 2 vols, RS (1882-5) 1 p 226 Google Scholar. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives Oscytel’s death as All Saints’ Eve 971, but the Chronicle may have been using a year beginning in autumn as in other tenth century obits, see Chronicles 1 p 119; EHD 1 p 125; and Whitelock, D., ‘The Appointment of Dunstan in Archbishop of Canterbury’, Otium et Negotium: Studies in Onomatology and Library Science presented to Olof von Feilitzened Sandgren, F. (Stockholm 1973) pp 238, 245Google Scholar.

47 Compare Gesetze 1 pp 184-5, 273, 276.

48 Gesetze 1 pp 140-1, 166-7, 170-1, 173, 181-2, 184-5, 190. 208-9; 158-9. An assembly at Whittlebury mentioned in one code may be an exception, although only a few commands from there survive, Gesetze I pp 182-3. The position of London is anomalous: while considered Mercian still, it was already under the close control of the West Saxon kings. It has been pointed out that the references to Edgar’s broad dominions are unparalleled in earlier laws, Nelson, [J. L.], [‘Inauguration Rituals’, Early Medieval Kingship, ed Sawyer, P.H and Wood, I. N.] (Leeds 1977) p 69 Google Scholar. This code is only known from Worcester sources, not being included in the southern compilation Quadripartitus.

49 Whitelock, EHD p 434.

50 HCY 1 p 435.

51 See S no 779 for the lords (kings ?) of Bernicia and Strathclyde at Edgar’s court in 970, and, for the submission of 973, Stenton pp 369-70.

52 On the problem of the imperial title of the English kings, Erdmann, [C.], [Forschungen zur Politischen Ideenwalt des Fruhmittelalters] (Berlin 1951) pp 37–43 Google Scholar: Drögereit, ‘Kaiseridee’, pp 57-73; Loyn, H. R., ‘The Imperial Style of the Tenth Century Anglo-Saxon Kings’, History, 40 (London 1955) pp 111-15Google Scholar; Stengel, [E. E.], [‘Imperator und Imperium bei den Angelsachsen’] DA 16 (1960) pp 54–66 Google Scholar; John, OB pp 52-6. The Worcester charters are S nos 392, 549, 550, 548, 569, 572 Although it has been claimed that the early life of Oswald proves that Imperator was a contemporary title, this work always calls the English kings rex and instead calls the east Frankish ruler Imperator without any qualification. Imperator is used of the English king only in its sense of commander, not necessarily implying a higher status than rex. The life also uses the allied terms imperiosus or imperium, the latter to describe the power of the nobleman Athelstan, see HCY 1 pp 425, 426, 428, 434, 435, 436.

53 S no 775, on the authenticity of this charter see Drögereit, ‘Kaiseridee’, p 70; Stengel p 57.

54 S nos 777, 778, 779, 781. Of these two use a regnal style of Athelstan’s diplomas between 931 and 934, and one repeats a title found only otherwise in a charter of Edgar for Northumbria in 963, S no 712. One may compare also the title in Aethelwold’s charter of 971, S no 782. The titles in S nos 731, 741, 751, 787, 796, 797. 798, 799 come from spurious and suspicious charters.

55 Dolley, R. H. M. and Metcalf, D. M., ‘The Reform of the English Coinage under Eadgar’, Anglo-Saxon Coins: Studies presented to F. M. Stanton, ed Dolley, R. H. M. (London 1961) pp 136-68Google Scholar. Recent work on the royal styles in the coins has been summarised by Whitelock, in Asser’s Life of King Alfred, ed Stevenson, W.H. rev ed (Oxford 1959) p cxxxvii Google Scholar. See also Stewart, I., Spink’s Numismatic Circular 75 (London 1967) p 271 Google Scholar.

56 Hohler pp 67-9.

57 Chronicles 1 pp 118-9; HCY 1 pp 436-8.

58 Taylor, C. S., ‘Bath, Mercian and West Saxon’, Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 23 (Gloucester 1900) pp 129-61Google Scholar; Nelson pp 63-70.

59 Nelson pp 60-62.

60 EHD 1 p 920. A similar refrain is found in Memorials p 36.

61 HCY 1 pp 448-9.

62 Leyser, [K. J.], Rule and Conflict [in an Early Medieval Society: Ottoman Saxony](London 1979) pp 16–17 Google Scholar.

63 Whitelock, EHD 1 p 60.

64 S nos 605, 607, 779, and the suspect nos 658, 786, 788, 792, 798, 812. Aethwold’s refoundation charter for the New Minster, Winchester, was cast in the form of a rule, S no 745, and many other charters include a reference to living regulariter, S nos 670, 688, 689, 690, 701, 786, 788. For the English rule, Regularis Concordia, ed Symons, T. (London 1953) pp 2–4 Google Scholar.

65 HCY I p 426; S no 779. This was first suggested in Knowles, MO p 42. The date 973 is proposed by T. Symons, ‘Regularis Concordia: History and Derivation’, TCS pp 39-42. Similarities between the Easter meeting and the synod at Winchester mentioned in the rule include the special importance of bishop Aethwold, author of the Concordia, and the great vilification of the clerks, HCY I pp 425, 426-7.

66 Mc.Grath, M., Preaching and Theology in Anglo-Saxon England: Aelfiic and Wulfstan (Toronto 1977)Google Scholar; Gneuss, H., ‘The Origin of Standard old English and Aethel-wold’s Schol at Winchester’, ASE 1 (1972) pp 63–83 Google Scholar; P. Clemoes, ‘Late Old English Literature’, TCS p 110.

67 Knowles, MO p 42.

68 Semmler, J., ‘Karl der Grosse und das Fränkische Monchtum’, Karl der Grosse: Das Geistige Leben, ed Bischoff, B. (Düsseldorf 1965) pp 255-89Google Scholar.

69 Semmler, J., ‘Reichsidee und Kirchliche Gesetzegebung bei Ludwig dem Frommen’, KRG 71 (1960) pp 37–65 Google Scholar; Ganshof, F. L. ‘Some Observations on the Ordinatio Imperii of 817’, The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy (London 1971) pp 273-88Google Scholar.

70 For English manuscripts of the decrees of 817, Bateson, M., ‘Rules for Monks and Secular Canons After the Revival under King Edgar’, EHR 9 (1894) pp 690–708 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp pp 694-5.

71 See S nos 779, 781, 782, and the doubtful 787 and 792 for thegns often recognisable from Ely and Peterborough records.

72 The evidence for late tenth century translations is mostly contained in the list analysed in Rollason, D. W., ‘Lists of Saints’ Resting-Places in Anglo-Saxon England’, ASE 7 (1978) pp 61–93 Google Scholar. This list was itself a product of the new interest in the saints of Mercia and Northumbria. On Athelstan’s relics, Robinson, Dunstan pp 72-8; Leyser, , ‘The Tenth Century in Byzantine-Western Relationships’, Relations between East and West in the Middle Ages, ed Baker, D. (Edinburgh 1973)Google Scholar; Leyser, Rule and Conflict p 88.

73 Campbell, J., ‘Observations on English Government from the ninth to the twelfth century’, TRHS 5 ser 25 (1975) pp 39–54 Google Scholar.

74 Gesetze I pp 222-3; Freeman, E. A., The Norman Conquest 5 vols (2 ed Oxford 1867-79) 1 p 605 Google Scholar. Both Byrhtferth of Ramsey and the ealdorman Aethelweard were so enthusiastic in their use of the term Angli that they could both even describe the West Saxons as the West Angles, a title that was never to catch on. The term East Angles can be used by Byrhtferth to mean the eastern Mercians, and by Aethelweard to mean the East Saxons. Aethelweard may also have been the first to use the term Anglia for England, see HCY 1 pp 428, 428, 444, 446; The Chronicle of Aethelweard, ed Campbell, A. (London 1962) pp li, 9 Google Scholar. When Aethelweard says Britannia nunc Anglia appellatur, he may be speaking of a more recent development than his context at first suggests.

75 I am grateful to Mr J. Campbell and Mr K. J. Leyser for helpful comments on this paper.