Back to
Maþeliende homeMaþeliende is published quarterly by the students and faculty of Anglo-Saxon Studies at The University of Georgia.
Maþeliende welcomes any and all correspondence and articles. Such material should be addressed to Mr. Eric Rochester, Park Hall, The University of Georgia. Copyright 1998 © Eric Rochester.
By Michel Aaij
Beowulf, a poem nearly a thousand years old, has attracted readers and critics (many more of the latter, it seems) for the past two hundred years or so. It is hard to think of another poem in the English language that is so widely and diversely studied and interpreted, and a new direction for scholarship has recently emerged. For many years scholars and students have accepted a date of composition of around 750 AD, but this has been questioned not too long ago, by Kevin Kiernan, in 1981. On the basis of evidence from the manuscript itself, rather than on doubtful linguistic and literary arguments, he argued that Beowulf might very well come from the first quarter of the eleventh century. In the present investigation, we shall see that apart from the arguments that Kiernan based upon his investigation of the manuscript, there are also historical arguments that make this proposition tenable and interesting, in light of recent criticism on the 'social work' of the poem.
The most widely accepted assumption on the origin of the poem is that it was composed sometime in the eight century, and orally transmitted through a variety of dialects until it was written down in the latter half of the tenth century. It is believed that the period between these two approximate dates was so much disturbed by Viking raids on England that a poem celebrating Danish affairs and genealogy (even linking a Danish royal line to an English one) could scarcely have been acceptable to an Anglo-Saxon audience. But the doubts about the desire to compose a poem like Beowulf in times like these also bear on its chances of oral survival. After all, if the English people during those two or so centuries were unwilling to compose a Beowulf, would they have wanted to transmit one?
From the eighth century on, the Vikings were perhaps the single most dominating political and military force in the whole of Europe. Their sphere of influence ranged from Iceland in the West to Moscow in the East, and South to Hungary and Constantinople. England in particular was under constant Scandinavian threat, both from Scandinavia itself and from Scandinavian settlements in Ireland, Scotland, and various islands in the region (most notably the Isle of Man and the Isle of Wight). England at this time was a rich country, but militarily and politically poorly organized. Danes and Norwegians went further than simply raiding the villages and towns on the English coastline and eventually settled all over the North of England, and peace was only established under King Alfred, when the Danelaw was recognized in 878 (Nyles and Amodio vii, Loyn 56-59).[1] Alfred was the first and last Anglo-Saxon king to reign over a united England-the next king to single-handedly rule England was a Dane. A period of relative calm followed, but around the end of the tenth century the raids began anew, and this time the Danes didn't stop until the whole of England was under their firm control. In the meantime, however, the Danish settlers had more successfully blended in with the natives. Danish influence can today still be seen by looking at a map-English place-names that end in -by and -thorpe are Danish in origin. Old Norse and Old English were so much alike that settlers and natives could communicate without difficulties, and the large number of Scandinavian loanwords in English today attest to the extent of Danish influence. Everyday words like window, sister, and husband are all of Scandinavian origin, and the complete set of plural third person pronouns in English is borrowed from Old Norse (Loyn 115-120, Pyles and Algeo 156, 293-95). Examples from and influence of Scandinavian art are found in many artifacts (Martin-Clarke 62-63, 91), even in the graveyard of St. Paul's Cathedral in London (Loyn 114). The Danes in England had converted to Christianity, and the Danelaw recognized King Edgar as their overlord (Loyn 81-82). All this may very well account for the survival of a poem with Danish interests between the eighth and the tenth century, but the end of this period again sees Scandinavians, this time quite different from the eventually peaceful and successful Danish farmers and traders of the preceding centuries.
From 980 on, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reads like a long list of Viking raids on English towns. In 991, an enormous Viking fleet harried the prosperous south-east. The Battle of Maldon records the unsuccessful stand of an English ealdorman against a small part of this fleet, and things would only get worse. King Ethelred, who had succeeded Edgar in 975, did not have the foresight and military might to prevent the Danes from continuously attacking. Massive Danegelds were paid to the raiders, but to no avail. The Danes recognized the rule of Ethelred as indecisive and weak, and the best Ethelred could do was pay tribute-until he decided on a massacre on the Danes living in England. This massacre took place in 1002 and led directly to more Danish attacks. In 1004 Sweyn Forkbeard and his two sons went to England with an avenging force, and one of these sons, Cnut, would become King of England.
One of the contributing factors in the Danish accession of the English throne undoubtedly was the morale of the English people. At least £157,000 in Danegeld was paid between 991 and 1014 (Loyn 84-90)[2], and the English people (including the Danish 'immigrants') lived in social chaos, in constant fear of death, under a king who was incapable of withstanding or buying off the Danish threat.[3] When Cnut, after the death of his father in 1014, finally made his final move on England, the country was in ruins and "even before Ethelred's death on 23 April 1016, the Chronicle already refers to him as King Cnut" (Loyn 90). On 18 October 1016 Cnut wins a decisive battle, and when on 30 November 1016 Ethelred's son Edmund Ironside dies, Cnut is sole ruler over England. Cnut had already converted to Christianity-probably a necessary move, politically speaking, and soon issued laws enforcing Christianity with a fervor unlike any of his predecessors.[4] One of his first acts was to transfer the remains of a martyred archbishop, Aelfheah, who had in 1012 been murdered by his Danish captors, to Canterbury. Another conscious move towards reconciliation was to employ Wulfstan, archbishop of York, in drafting his laws in agreement with Edgars and Ethelred's. A third move was marrying Ethelred's widow Emma. By such acts, and winning the clergy with precious gifts,[5] Cnut was soon able to rule unopposed, and, as far as we can discern, by common consent.[6]
This is how we find England in the 1020s: ravaged by war and payment of tribute, but still wealthy, with a population part of which were thoroughly assimilated Danes, ruled by a Danish king who did everything to be seen as continuing the reign of his English predecessors. This is where Beowulf might come in. Most of the early interpretations of Beowulf have focused on the supposed allegorical layer of the work, either on its Christian coloring to support in some cases a Christ-like interpretation of its main character,[7] or on its Germanic origins. A recent reading of the poem seems to stand out from the others, not just in its difference, but also in its elegant simplicity.
In 1983, John D. Niles published his Beowulf: The Poem and Its Tradition, and proposed that if the poem has a controlling view, it might very well be community: "its nature, its occasional breakdown, and the qualities that are necessary to maintain it" (226). Beowulf, he says, is not simply a hero fighting evil in three episodes; he is a hero fighting for maintaining the society he lives in. This is why for a heroic poem relatively few lines are devoted to the actual action, and so many to digressions introducing material from Germanic legends to the social etiquette of the Danish court. Grendel, for instance, does not just represent something evil battling mankind. Grendel is a loner, outside the community of men, and threatening that very union-a threat that seems more than real when some frightened Danes turn to heathen gods for salvation, a practice heavily criticized by the poet. The actions of the hero are set against a background of a society that, although not everlasting and without conflict (the Finn-episode is proof of that, as is the fate of the Geats after the death of Beowulf), is nevertheless the only thing to stand between mankind as a community and total chaos. What connects a lord and his thane, for instance, is the thane's willingness to give up his life for his lord, in return for which loyalty the lord has to prove himself 'not niggardly of gifts.' That Beowulf is a Fuerstenspiegel has been indicated before, most notably by Swanton, and if this (individualistic) Fuerstenspiegel is combined with the social setting advocated by Niles, we end up with a vision of the poem that fits in wonderfully with the social circumstances of someone like Cnut, in a country like England.
The connection between this reading of Beowulf and the earlier discussion of a particular period of English history then may be the following.[8] King Cnut tried to do everything in his power to be a king over all the English people, changing himself from a pirate[9] into a Christian king. The concept of 'people' here is already complicated. Cnut became king over English, Danish, and 'Anglo-Danish' subjects-a mixed bunch, and ruling them must have required great diplomacy. The royal donations to churches, the formulation of English law following English models, uniting Danish and English royal lines by marriage-all these seem to be acts that the Beowulf-poet would have approved of, and which to a certain extent are part of the world of the poem. But there is more that can relate the England of this era to Beowulf.
That a member of a certain tribe or people could change allegiances and find a new retainer is well-known from Germanic legendry, but seems to occupy a particularly prominent position in Beowulf. For the poem ends with Beowulf's death after slaying the dragon, and the only one of his thanes who did not run, but remained by his lord's side, is not a Geat like Beowulf: he is a Swede. This kinsman of Beowulf, Wiglaf, is actually the son of Weohstan, who fought against Beowulf in the conflict over the succession of the Swedish throne after Onela's death (Klaeber xliv). Wiglaf's otherness in terms of his father's allegiance is stressed by the importance of his sword. When Wiglaf realizes Beowulf's need, he draws the sword his father had used to kill Eanmund, the Swedish prince who sought refuge at the Geatish court, then held by Heardred (2603-2616a). The political importance of an event like this, closely connected to the death of the main character, should not be overlooked, and eventually Wiglaf is designated by Beowulf as the only one worthy to succeed him. If in a poem of this magnitude the gap between enmity to kinship could so successfully be bridged by two persons of different tribes, simply by noble conduct, then perhaps this could also be done in the reality of English life-and even if this were not as easy as in the case of Beowulf and Wiglaf,[10] the characters in the poem need only serve as role models.
Without wanting to make King Cnut look like the actual patron of the poem, I hope to have indicated that we can safely say that the circumstances for creating a poem like Beowulf during Cnut's reign were favorable. The common Germanic ancestry of the Anglo-Saxons and the Danes made the story and all its digressions intelligible and attractive to both peoples, and the political interests of King Cnut must have made his court susceptible to the implications of the poem.[11] In addition, this line of thought can account for the problem faced by many scholars (whether openly acknowledged or not) concerning the transmission of a poem with subject-matter that during the ninth and tenth century to a large part of the population and the nobility must have been offensive. The dating of the manuscript clearly admits the possibility of the poem's dating from Cnut's reign, and linguistic evidence cannot disprove this. An actual commission by Cnut for the making of this poem has not been found, but since there are indications (if not evidence) for this possibility, from linguistic and historical research, and from the manuscript itself, Beowulf's possible dating from the reign of Cnut, and perhaps a more intimate connection between fictional and real Scandinavian kings, needs to be taken seriously.
By Eric Rochester
Alfred's famous preface to his translation of Pope Gregory I's Regula Pastoralis officially announced his educational reforms, outlining a program in which "eall sio gioguð ðe nu is on Angelcynne friora monna" 'all the youth who are now among the English race of free men' (7.10), would begin by learning "Englisc gewrit arædan" 'to read English writing' (7.13), and a select few would then go on to learn to read Latin.[1] Alfred sent this plan, and the text it prefaced, to each bishopric, with instructions that the book and its accompanying æstel were generally not to leave the minster.
This preface has been the focus of most of the critical discussion about the Pastoral Care, and for good reason: it is one of the few pieces of original Old English prose extant, and as it outlines Alfred's translation program and educational reforms, it holds a special place in the hearts of educators. Since in these respects it eclipses the work it was attached to, until recently the attention directed to the translation itself was mainly linguistic. This has begun to change, however, as scholars such as William H. Brown Jr. and Charles Dahlberg have begun studying aspects like its style and the metaphors used in it.
However, there have been few if any sustained inquiries into the connection between the preface and the Pastoral Care. Simeon Potter noted that Alfred "was directly concerned not so much with that universal activity, the governance of souls, as with that pressing necessity, the advancement of learning" (114-15). Furthermore, as Allen J. Frantzen points out, "the Pastoral Care exemplifies [Alfred's plans for educational renewal]" (27):
Informative, comprehensive, and authoritative, it was a wholly appropriate beginning to Alfred's program of translations. No other text of Alfred's period, and perhaps of the Middle Ages in general, could have spoken more clearly to the needs of an enlightened king in search of a means of educating, motivating, and redirecting his followers. (42)
Beyond these mentions, however, and a general admittance of its appropriateness, there has been no in-depth study into the how Alfred's concerns may have effected what work he chose to translate, as well as his translation of it.
Beginning with the preface, Alfred raises the theme of learning, teaching, and the pursuit of sapientia, which Paul E. Szarmach identifies as being the preface's major theme. Alfred makes this theme explicit, reflecting on the past and on "ða godcundan hadas hu giorne hie wæron ægðer ge ymb lare ge ymb liornunga" 'on the holy orders, how eager they were both concerning knowledge and concerning learning' (3.9-10). A few lines later, he adds, "Gode ælmihtegum sie ðonc ðætte we nu ænigne on stal habbað lareowa" 'God Almighty be thanked that we now have any supply of teachers' (3.18-5.1).
Furthermore, Alfred's choice of a text, Gregory's Regula Pastoralis, continues the theme begun in the preface in that it also is concerned with learning. Gregory admonishes, "Sit rector internorum curam in exteriorum occupatione non minuens" 'let the ruler not reduce the care of internal matters in the business of external' (38).[2] In fact, Frantzen points out that every page of the Regula Pastoralis contains the lesson "that ruling is a 'professional occupation' requiring training" (26).
Gregory's original purpose was to provide a guidebook for bishops, but many of his comments about the office of the pastor are also relevant to the office of king, and as such this book influenced the tradition of the speculum regis. The first formal examples of these manuals are usually associated with the Carolingian renaissance. Alcuin, for instance, frequently used letters to give rulers advice. The most prolific writer of specula regis, however, was Hincmar of Rheims, a contemporary of King Alfred.
And Alfred's translation of the Pastoral Care recognizes these purposes for the work. He emphasizes its use as a religious guidebook by sending a copy "to ælcum biscepstole on minum rice" 'to every bishopric in my kingdom' (7.25). He also emphasizes its use as a political guidebook by translating certain ecclesiastical terms using secular words like aldordom 'lordship' and reccendom 'governance'.
But his translation also creates for the Pastoral Care another purpose: that of an educational guidebook. While the original was interested in teaching-especially spiritual teaching-as a duty of the lay cleric, Alfred takes this interest and emphasizes it through his translations of chapter headings and of keys passages.
In the translations of the chapter headings, Alfred changes the topic from power or command to teaching. For example, in the original, the first chapter heading in the first part reads, "Ne venire imperiti ad magisterium audeant" 'let the inexperienced not dare to come into authority' (14), while the translation reads, "ðætte unlærde ne dyrren underfon lareowdom" 'that the unlearned not dare undertake teaching' (25.14). Likewise, the sixth chapter heading in part one of the original reads, "Quod hi qui pondus regiminis per humilitatem fugiunt" 'as for those who flee the burden of command because of humility' (19), while the translation reads, "Bi ðæm ðe for eaðmodnesse fleoð ða byrðenne ðæs lareowdomes" 'concerning those who for humility flee the burden of teaching' (47.5-6). In these examples, Alfred shifts the attention from magisterium and regimen to lareowdom, emphasizing a new topic.
But most of the changes Alfred makes to the chapter headings do not shift the topic so much as they shift the intended audience. For example, in the second chapter heading of the second book, the original reads, "Ut rector cogitatione sit mundus" 'considering how the ruler should be clean in thought' (27), while the translation reads, "Hu se lareow sceal bion clæne on his mode" 'how the teacher should be clean in his mind' (75.18). Later, in the fifth chapter of the second book, the original reads, "Ut sit rector singulis compassione proximus, præ cunctis contemplatione suspensus" 'considering how the ruler should be most like everyone in compassion, but raised above all in contemplation' (32), while the translation reads, "Hu se lareow sceal bion eallum monnum efnðrowiende & foreðencende on hiora eafoðum" 'how the teacher should be sympathetic to all men and interceding in their hardships' (97.20-21). This translation of lareow for rector is in fact common through the text of the Pastoral Care.
In another heading, Alfred even supplies an audience that contradicts the implicit, originally intended audience. The heading for Gregory's book three, chapter forty, "De opere prædicationis et voce" 'concerning the works and voice of preaching' (124), is directed at preachers. Alfred, however, changes the audience and the focus: "Be ðæm weorcum ðæs lareowes & be his wordum" 'concerning the works of the teacher and concerning his words' (461.9). This change, along with the regular use of lareow for rector, acts to shift the audience from the governor or ruler to the teacher.
But not only does Alfred alter chapter headings; he also alters key passages. Two places especially stand out. A passage near the end of Gregory's introduction says:
sunt plerique mihi imperitia similes, qui dum metiri se nesciunt, quæ non didicerint docere concupiscunt; qui pondus magisterii tanto levius æstimant, quanto vim magnitudinis, illius ignorant. (13)
There are many similar in inexperience to me who yet do not know to measure themselves, who aspire to teach things they have not learned, who esteem the weight of authority so lightly that they disregard the power of its greatness.
Alfred translates this thus:
Ac monige sindon me suiðe onlice on ungelærednesse, ðeah ðe hi næfre leorningcnihtas næren, wilniað ðeah lareowas to beonne, & ðyncet him suiðe leoht sio byrðen ðæs lareowdomes, forðonðe hi ne cunnon ðæt mægen his micelnesse. (25.7-10)
But many are very like me in unlearnedness. Although they were never students, still they wish to be teachers, and think the burden of teaching very light, because they do not know the power of its greatness.
Especially notice the translations of two terms: imperitia 'inexperience' as ungelærednes 'unlearned' and magisterium 'authority' as lareowdom 'teaching'.
Alfred similarly translates another passage, one even more critical to the Regula Pastoralis. It is borrowed from Gregory Nazianzen's Apologetica, which reads, "For in truth this appears to me to be the art of arts and the science of sciences to lead man, creature most changeful and varying" (qtd. in Potter 114). In fact, Potter sees the entire Regula Pastoralis as being "a magnificent elaboration" of this one sentence (114). Gregory I expresses this sentiment at the beginning of the first chapter of the first part:
Nulla ars doceri præsumitur, nisi intenta prius meditatione discatur. Ab imperitis ergo pastorale magisterium qua temeritate suscipitur, quando ars est artium regimen animarum. (14)
No art is thought to be taught unless previously it was learned through vigorous meditation. Therefore, by what rashness is pastoral authority undertaken by the inexperienced, since the art of arts is the government of souls.
Alfred, however, translates it thus:
Forðonðe nan cræft nis to læranne ðæm ðe hine ær geornlice ne leornode, forhwon beoð æfre suæ ðriste ða ungelæredan ðæt hi underfon ða heorde ðæs lariowdomes, ðonne se cræft ðæs lareowdomes bið cræft ealra cræfta? (25.15-18)
Since no craft is to be taught by those who previously did not earnestly learn it, why are the unlearned ever so rash that they undertake the duty of teaching, when the craft of teaching is the craft of all crafts.
The change to this passage, recognized as so key to the entire original, changes the focus of the work. Along with imperitia's translation as ungelærednes, the change of the ars artium from regimen animarum to lareowdom brings out a new purpose for the work: that of an educational guidebook.
But what is Alfred trying to tell teachers? The parts of the Pastoral Care that Alfred directs to teachers are widespread enough that it follows Gregory's concerns to the lay clergy in general.
Alfred is concerned with what kind of people the teachers should be. They should be learned (25.14). They should live according to what they teach (29.18-20). They should be clean in their minds (75.18). They should be firm in their works (81.1). They should be discrete in silence and useful in speech (89.3-4). Their motives for teaching should be pure, and they should be humble, but if called to teach, their duty should not be shirked (47.5-7, 20-22).
Alfred is also concerned with how the teachers lived their lives in that they should maintain a balance between their inner lives and external affairs (127.8-10).
Finally, Alfred is concerned with teaching methodology. The majority of the Pastoral Care, part three, covers this topic, stressing that one must vary one's approach depending on whom one is trying to reach (173.12-13), including that one should not try to teach hard lessons to those of weak mind, that is, to those incapable of comprehending them (459.4-5).
Taken altogether, Alfred created a package. In the preface, he sent out a plan for educational reforms to his bishops, possibly putting them in charge of the education of the youth of the free men nearest them. Attached to this plan is a guidebook that probably gave advice to Alfred himself as a secular ruler and that was written explicitly for them as bishops. But the translation Alfred made adds another purpose, another point of usefulness to the book: it provides practical instruction about what kind of people they were to be and how best to reach their pupils, instruction to help them carry out the task Alfred had given them, the task of educating the young and ultimately of rebuilding England's intellectual wealth.
By Geoff Boxell
Everyone in England knows the date 1066, for in that year England changed forever. Most will connect 1066 with the Battle of Hastings, but Hastings was the culmination of a series of major events that had taken place that year. When the saintly and childless King Edward died, the king's council, the Witan, gathered to elect a new king. Finding no suitable member of the Royal Family, they decided to make Harold Godwinson, Earl of Wessex, the new king. Of Danish Royal blood through his mother, he had in fact been effectively running the kingdom for several years.
Harold faced a challenge to his new throne from the Norwegian king Harald Hardrada, who claimed to be Christendom's best warrior. Harald invaded the north of England with a fleet of 360 longships manned by men from all over the Viking world. After defeating the local army at Fulford, he took York. King Harold Godwinson marched 200 miles in six days, caught the Viking army off guard and killed Hardrada and most of his men. The English victory was total. As the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has it:
But Harold let the king's son, Edmund, go home to Norway with all the ships. He also gave quarter to Olave, the Norwegian king's son, and to their bishop, and to the earl of the Orkneys, and to all those that were left in the ships; who then went up to our king, and took oaths that they would ever maintain faith and friendship unto this land. Whereupon the King let them go home with 24 ships.
Whilst celebrating the victory feast news was given to King Harold that another challenger had landed, Duke William the Bastard of Normandy. Harold gathered the remnants of his army and rapidly marched south to meet the new threat. Outside Hastings, blocking the strategic roads to the main city of the realm, London, and Winchester, where the treasury was, and with reinforcements still arriving, the English army was defeated. King Harold died and with him fell his household troops and the flower of the English nobility.
The impression of many people, especially those not of English birth, and including a surprising number of history academics, is that that was that. Having lost their king, most of the nobility and the best fighting men, the English then stopped resisting the Normans and the Conquest, as such, took effect immediately when King Harold died. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the rearguard action at the Battle of Hastings, known as the Fight at the Fosse, where Norman casualties were higher than even those of the main battle, to the final quenching of resistance some twenty years later, the Normans knew little peace from their English subjects. Indeed has it ever ended? Those who know the English class system with its continuous sniping, would say that the struggle against the 'Norman Yoke' continues to this day.
After Hastings William advanced on London by a circular route that started via Kent, burning a ring of fire around the country's main city. The advance was contested and met much armed resistance. Meanwhile the Witan had proclaimed the young Edgar Ætheling, last scion of the old Wessex royal line, king. William moved fast towards London to enforce his will before the remaining English nobility were able to re-group around Edgar and start an organized resistance to him. Such was William's uncertainty, and the problems he was having with the local populace, that he was forced to take a considerable detour to Wallingford, well west of London, before he could find a safe and defensible place to cross the Thames. Even then it was uncertain what the reaction of the Londoners would be to his army. London, upon the advice of Aldred, Archbishop of York, and Earl Morkar of Northumberland together with his brother Edwin, submitted. Even so there was an armed skirmish which resulted in the massacre of many Londoners (William of Jumieges 100.16.135-36).
William's coronation was on midwinter's day, and shortly after he returned to Normandy taking the surviving English nobles with him.
The English resistance first showed itself, not in armed defiance, but in stubbornness. Leofric, Abbot of Peterborough died:
Then chose the monks for abbot Brand the provost, by reason that he was a very good man, and very wise, and sent him then to Edgar the Ætheling, by reason that the people of the land supposed that he should become king: and the Ætheling granted it him then gladly. (ASC)
The newly crowned William was not amused and sent armed men to display his wroth. Fortunately William was always gold hungry and allowed himself to be bought off with a hefty fine.
But the real trouble in 1067 was brewing in the hilly Marcherland of the Welsh border, where two Norman Earls who belonged to families settled in the area during the reign of King Edward the Confessor used the confusion caused by William's seizing of the throne to extend their land holdings at the expense of the local English thanes, especially those lands held by Edric, soon to become known as 'the Wild'. There was already bad blood between Edric and his Norman neighbors and now it exploded into open warfare. In revenge for raids on his land Edric, in alliance with two Welsh princes, Bleddyn and Rhiwallon, devastated Herefordshire and eventually sacked Hereford itself, before retreating back into the hills ahead of the new king's revengeful army.
Meantime, King Harold's mother, Gytha encouraged the people of Devon to rise up, and William had major problems subduing them, especially in retaking the city of Exeter. At the same time, the other main claimant to the English throne, Edgar Ætheling, had escaped the Norman king's clutches and gone to Scotland with his family and a large number of important men. The south was also restive and later in the year, the men of Dover invited Eustace of Boulogne to help them in their insurrection. This uprising was soon put down, and without the presence of King William himself. The people of the north were also chafing under Norman rule. William advanced upon them with his army, burning and laying waste as he went. The men of Northumberland lacked the confidence to take part in a battle and either submitted or fled into Scotland to join the other refugees there.
In the autumn two of King Harold's sons, who had gone to the Norse east coast of Ireland, came and raided the west country, where the Celtic Cornishmen joined them in arms. They plundered and ravished the countryside to such an extent that eventually even the English lost patience and joined with local Norman garrisons to expel them.
For 1068 the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle begins:
This year King William gave Earl Robert the earldom over Northumberland; but the landsmen attacked him in the town of Durham, and slew him, and nine hundred men with him.
It would seem that William had appointed Robert de Comines, Earl of Northumberland, without asking the locals if they would accept him instead of the English Earl Morkar! Edgar Ætheling took advantage of this and came from Scotland and received the men of Northumberland at York. William moved up fast from the south and surprised the Northumbrians. Hundreds were slain and the city torched.
1069 and Harold's sons were back, raiding the west country again. Unfortunately for them they met defeat at the hands of Earl Brian of Penthievre, and fled back to Ireland. At the same time Edric the Wild and his Welsh allies had broken out from their Marcher hills and took Shrewsbury before moving on to Chester. William had to leave them to their own devices as he had his hands full dealing with an uprising in Northumberland lead by Morkar and his brother Edwin and supported by the Danish king, Swein Esthrithson, who also had a claim to the English throne. Fighting alongside them were the Earls Waltheof and Gospatrick, together with Edgar Ætheling. The Normans in York were slaughtered, with Earl Waltheof's exploit of slaying a hundred Frenchmen with his long-axe as they tried to escape through a gate, ending up in heroic verse. William moved north again laying waste as he went. The Danes took to their ships and commenced raiding the east coast, seeking assistance from their relations in the Danelaw part of England, which included the marshy wetlands of the Fens, where other trouble was brewing. William left part of his army to watch them whilst he crossed the Pennine hills to face the threat posed by Edric and the Welsh princes, who now had a formidable army bolstered by the men of Cheshire and Staffordshire. William rode with his men and joined Earl Brian, who had marched up from the west country after beating Harold's sons. Edric became wary and withdrew to the hills with his Herefordshire and Shropshire men. The Welsh, with the remaining English, marched on and were defeated at the battle of Stafford. William then devastated the land about and laid it waste. A further revolt in the west country, that seemed to be aimed at individual Normans, fizzled out in the face of forces drawn from London and the southeast and through internal dissent amongst the insurgents.
William now dealt with the Northumberland problem, a problem that had grown with the stepping up of revolt in the Fens lead by a local landholder, Hereward the Wake. After a hard march north along a route determined by violent resistance, broken bridges and swollen rivers, William took and re-entered York without a fight. The Danes had fled, and the men of Northumberland, dispirited by William's ability to advance despite the hazards set before him by both nature and English, fled into the hills, pursued by King William's men. With grim determination, William's army set about destroying homes and crops and extinguishing all human and animal life from the Humber to the Wash. Those that avoided violent death, died from exposure or starvation:
Nowhere else had William shown such cruelty. Shamefully he succumbed to this vice, for he made no effort to restrain his fury, punished the innocent with the guilty. In his anger he commanded that all crops and herds, chattels and food of every kind should be brought together and burned to ashes with consuming fire, so that the whole region north of the Humber might be stripped of all means of sustenance. In consequence so serious a scarcity was felt in England, and so terrible a famine fell upon the humble and defenceless populace, that more than 100,000 Christian folk of both sexes, young and old alike, perished of hunger. (Orderic Vitalis 4.2.195)
The blood letting did not stop William from celebrating Christmas at York, complete with a feast served on silver plate especially brought up from Winchester (Orderic Vitalis 2.196). Christmas over, William chased the men of Tees around the Cleveland hills. William's harrowing of the north had its effect on the leaders of the northern rebellion, as Waltheof and Gospatrick both came to an accommodation with him. The king made his way back to York in atrocious conditions, seeking bands of Englishmen as he went, and suffering heavy losses of men in the process. Here he re-erected the castles the Anglo-Norse had burned down and regarrisoned them. He was now able to turn his attention to Chester, which was defiantly refusing to recognize him. Chester was at the northern extremity of the Welsh Marches and at the same time offered access to the Norse based in Ireland, should they decide to help their relations living in Cumberland.
In January 1070, a Norman army set off across the Pennines in bad weather through land that offered them no sustenance as they themselves had laid it waste. William's army suffered badly in the hills to both weather and English attacks. The men, who were mainly mercenaries from the northern provinces of France, mutinied, so he abandoned them to their fate. With a reduced force consisting of only Normans, he arrived at Chester, and it submitted without a fight. He then busied himself building castles to hold the north down. He also spent money on buying the Danes, under their leader, Jarl Osbjorn, off with a large Danegeld.
Though the revolt in the Fens, lead by Hereward, had been strengthened by refugees from the harrowing of Northumberland, including Earl Morkar, it had at the same time been weakened by Osbjorn taking the bribe and going home to Denmark. However, whilst his brother, Jarl Osbjorn, and his fleet had been bought off, King Swein of Denmark and his new fleet had not been! What happened during the years 1070 and 1071 is as much legend as recorded fact. We know that William made at least two unsuccessful attempts, either in person or through a lieutenant, to take the Isle of Ely where Hereward and his forces were based. We also know that Hereward kept his Danish allies paid by allowing them to sack Peterborough and its Cathedral, now controlled by a Norman Bishop. What we do not know are the exact happenings, or the sequence of events. Eventually Swein, perhaps seeing himself in a no-win situation, allowed himself to be bought off. Later Ely was taken by the Normans after local monks betrayed secret causeways through the Fens that would allow an army access to the Isle. Although Ely fell in 1071, Hereward escaped and, with a band of followers "passed over into Brunneswald; in like manner he went on to dwell in the great woods of Northamptonshire, laying land waste with fire and sword" (De Gestis Herwardii Saxonis) and, thus, remained a thorn in King William's side for many years to come.
1072 and the trouble came from the Scots with their numbers swelled by many English, including Edgar Ætheling. William took an army across the border and confronted Malcolm King of Scots at Abernethy. Malcolm accepted the inevitable and made peace.
By 1073, William felt that at last he had conquered England. Just as well, as his French subjects in Maine were revolting. The army that William took with him to bring his French subjects to heel was largely English. These Englishmen showed that they had watched their Norman masters well, for they devastated Maine in the same manner as the Normans had Cheshire and Northumberland: "the English very much injured by destroying the vineyards, burning the towns, and spoiling the land" (ASC). But, apart from some banditry, England was quietly brooding both that year and the following.
The storm broke in 1075 with the Revolt of the Earls. The two Earls were both half English and half French, and both had supported William in his claim for the throne in 1066. Ralf, Earl of East Anglia, was English on his father's side and had been born in Norfolk, but grew up in Brittany. Roger, Earl of Hereford, English on his mother's side and born in Hereford, was Ralf's brother-in-law. They plotted to bring in Danish support; they also tried to bring in Earl Waltheof and possibly Edric the Wild. Waltheof declined to be involved in the plot, but also declined to betray them. If successful, the simultaneous rising of the Earls would have cut England in two. Somehow the timing got out of alignment and William was able to crush Roger, before dealing with Ralf. The only memorable event was the defense of Norwich by Ralf's new bride, Emma, where she withstood siege for three months after her husband had left to seek aid from the Danes. The fleet of 200 ships arrived too late to lift the siege. Of the Earls, Ralf made it to his Breton holdings to be joined by his wife, and there he continued his fight against the Normans. His punishment was loosing all right to his English lands. Earl Roger was also disinherited. Unfortunately for him he had been captured and spent the rest of his life in prison. Earl Waltheof, having refused to take part in the revolt, had nonetheless to swear an oath of secrecy. Taking the advice of Lanfranc, the Archbishop of Canterbury, he revealed the whole plan to King William. At first the king accepted Waltheof's protestations of innocence but, some say on the information given to him by his niece Judith, Waltheof's wife, he later charged the Earl of Northampton with treason and had him beheaded. The English and many Normans were aghast at the execution. Soon miracles were reported at Waltheof's tomb, and it rapidly became a place of pilgrimage. Orderic Vitalis said:
King William was censured by many men for the execution of Earl Waltheof and by the just judgement of God he had to face many rebellions and suffer great adversity; so that he could never again enjoy lasting peace. In the thirteen years of life which remained to him he never once drove an army from the field, nor succeeded in storming any castle which he besieged. (2.290)
William's troubles were now mostly in France or the borders with Scotland whence Malcolm and his English supporters came to raid. The Welsh too were a cause for concern. The only major problems from the English came in 1080, when the men of Gateshead slew the Bishop of Durham and a hundred Frenchmen, and 1086, when Edgar Ætheling was again in revolt. But to the very end of his reign, the following year, William was threatened by the Danes, who knew that any landing they made on the East Anglian or Northumberland coasts would find support from their relatives in the Danelaw.
Even during those later years, when it seemed that the English were getting used to having Norman masters, things were not that peaceful. Evidence of this is the Murdrum fine. Because of the high rate of homicide being suffered by the Normans and their French allies, King William legislated that all Frenchmen who settled in England after the invasion were to be in the king's peace, and therefore, he was their protector in an alien land. Its introduction was recognized at the time as being necessary due to the hatred of the Normans by the English and their attacks on them. The fine was a high one of 46 Marks. The sum was to be paid by the lord of the dead man to the Crown if the perpetrator was not hastily caught. If the killer could not reimburse the victim's lord, then the Hundred where the crime had been committed had to (Robertson 238-43).
In view of the strength and longevity of the English resistance to the Norman Conquest, why did it fail? A vital element was King William's determination and immense energy that saw him going from one end of the country to the other, fighting the flames of resistance and stamping on the smoldering embers of resentment. Another important element was that, once an area had been secured, castles were raised and garrisoned to keep the locals in check (Orderic Vitalis ii.184). But the key element was that the viable leadership of any English resistance was effectively neutralized when King Harold was killed at the Battle of Hastings. There was no king and therefore no leadership or heart in the remaining English. Until a new king was elected, the defense of the realm devolved on the noble ealdormen- who were either dead, or recovering from Stamford Bridge or Fulford. The Ætheling and the remaining earls were all young and initially seemed to be under the hesitant influence of the elderly senior churchmen. Below the earls came the king's thanes and shire-reeves (people like Edric the Wild or Hereward the Wake, Harold's son Swein or any one of a myriad other resistance leaders who remained a problem to the Normans [Reynolds]), who did continue the fight against William in their own regions. Without decisive leadership, no English army could take the field. That was advantageous to William, giving him time to recover, take London and Winchester and force the acknowledgment of his accession from the remaining members of the Witan. But it did take until 1075 until William felt confident in his control of England. Then it was the turn of Anglo-Norman barons to rebel against him, claiming a wish to return to the laws and rights of Englishmen during the rule of Edward the Confessor. And always there was the threat of Viking invasion, supported by the men of the Danelaw.
Slowly the English and Normans came together through the necessity of living side by side and also through marriage. With many of the rank and file Normans, and their French colleagues, being men of small worth, they had little option but to mix in with their English neighbors, leaving their noble masters to carry on the illusion of being truly French. But even they, with their children being raised by English nannies and their English reeves and stewards managing their estates, became first Anglo-Norman, and then English. Writing in 1170, the Treasurer Richard fitz Nigel, himself of Anglo-Norman extraction, said that:
nowadays when Normans and Englishmen live close together and marry each other it can scarcely be determined, that is in the case of free men, who is of English, and who is of Norman birth. (53)
But that coming together was of a later generation. An example is the chronicler, Orderic Vitalis. His father was Norman, but mother English, and he was born in England. In his The Ecclesiastical History, completed in 1125, he criticized the Normans by saying:
so when the Normans became wealthy on the spoils garnered by others, they arrogantly abused their authority and mercilessly slaughtered the native people like the scourge of God, smiting them for their sins. (2.224)
His criticism of King William was no less severe, claiming that William:
presumptuously invaded the fair kingdom of England and unjustly slew its true heirs or drove them into exile. (2.260)
So much did this half Norman identify with the country of his birth, that in his writing he applauded the continued resistance of the English to William the Bastard, and even wrote the patriot Earl Waltheof's epitaph (Orderic Vitalis 2.289)! As with the Viking Norse, the English absorbed the French Normans. But nothing would ever be the same after 1066.