CHAPTER V

Viking raids in England 980-1016Viking raids in England 980-1016

FOOTNOTES:[116]Florence of Worcester,Chronicon, i., 173.[117]Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1016.[118]Corpus Poeticum Boreale, ii., 108: the Lithsmen's Song.[119]Book vii., c. 28.[120]Florence of Worcester,Chronicon, i., 174.[121]Ibid., i., 175.[122]Encomium Emmæ, ii., c. 6. See also Thietmar,Chronicon, vii., c. 28.[123]The story is first told by Florence of Worcester (Chronicon, i., 175)[124]If the skirmishers who were seeking booty were in advance of the rest and by a rally of the Danes were driven into the Thames, the main force must still have been on the north bank. The "battle" must therefore have been fought on the north bank while a fragment of Canute's army was on the retreat, perhaps on the point of fording the stream. At any rate, we seem hardly justified in calling the engagement at Brentford a "pitched battle." See Oman,England before the Norman Conquest, 579.[125]Oman (ibid.) seems to believe that Edmund retained his forces but went into Wessex to get reinforcements. But unless Edmund's victorious army had to a large extent melted away, it is difficult to account for Canute's prompt return to the siege of London.[126]Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1016. On this raid Eric seems to have met and defeated Ulfketel, who "gat ugly blows from the thingmen's weapons," as we are told by Thorrod in theEric's Praise.Corpus Poeticum Boreale, ii., 105. The raid seems also to be alluded to in the Lithsmen's Song (ibid., 107).[127]Florence of Worcester,Chronicon, i., 176.[128]The account in theChronicleof what occurred at Aylesford is ambiguous and has been variously interpreted: "and the King slew as many as he could come upon; and Eadric ealdorman turned against [or toward?] the king at Aylesford. Nor was there ever worse counsel adopted than that was." Some writers have interpreted this to mean that Eadric joined Edmund at Aylesford and not after Sherstone, as stated by Florence. But the Saxongewende ongeanhas a hostile rather than a favourable colour. The probabilities are that Eadric opposed Edmund's plans at Aylesford and thus rendered further pursuit impossible. Such is Florence of Worcester's version (Chronicon, i., 177). For a different view see Hodgkin (Pol. Hist. of Eng., i., 397) and Oman (England before the Norman Conquest, 580).[129]Encomium Emmæ, ii., c. 12.[130]The Encomiast admits that the tale is hard to believe, but avers that it is true (ii., c. 9). The story of the raven is old and occurs earlier in the English sources.[131]Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1016. Florence of Worcester,Chronicon, i., 178.[132]Snorre,Saga of Saint Olaf, c. 14.[133]Jómsvikingasaga, c. 52.[134]Encomium Emmæ, ii., c. 12.[135]Encomium Emmæ, ii., c. 13.[136]Probably not the isle of Olney, but some other islet that has since disappeared. See Oman,England before the Norman Conquest, 581.[137]Henry of Huntingdon,Historia Anglorum, 185;Knytlingasaga, c. 16. The saga says distinctly that there was to be inheritance only if either died without children.[138]Saga of Magnus the Good, c. 6.[139]Florence of Worcester,Chronicon, i., 179.[140]Sigeferth and Morcar were slain in Eadric's house at the Oxford gemot. (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1015.)[141]See Freeman (Norman Conquest, i., Note xx) whose argument seems conclusive.[142]Encomium Emmæ, ii., c. 14.[143]Gesta Regum, i., 213-214. The author merely tells us that Edmund's mother was of ignoble birth; but a woman of low degree would scarcely be made queen of England.[144]Ethelred of Rievaux. See Freeman,Norman Conquest, i., Note ss.[145]Kemble,Codex Diplomaticus, No. 1302.

[116]Florence of Worcester,Chronicon, i., 173.

[117]Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1016.

[118]Corpus Poeticum Boreale, ii., 108: the Lithsmen's Song.

[119]Book vii., c. 28.

[120]Florence of Worcester,Chronicon, i., 174.

[121]Ibid., i., 175.

[122]Encomium Emmæ, ii., c. 6. See also Thietmar,Chronicon, vii., c. 28.

[123]The story is first told by Florence of Worcester (Chronicon, i., 175)

[124]If the skirmishers who were seeking booty were in advance of the rest and by a rally of the Danes were driven into the Thames, the main force must still have been on the north bank. The "battle" must therefore have been fought on the north bank while a fragment of Canute's army was on the retreat, perhaps on the point of fording the stream. At any rate, we seem hardly justified in calling the engagement at Brentford a "pitched battle." See Oman,England before the Norman Conquest, 579.

[125]Oman (ibid.) seems to believe that Edmund retained his forces but went into Wessex to get reinforcements. But unless Edmund's victorious army had to a large extent melted away, it is difficult to account for Canute's prompt return to the siege of London.

[126]Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1016. On this raid Eric seems to have met and defeated Ulfketel, who "gat ugly blows from the thingmen's weapons," as we are told by Thorrod in theEric's Praise.Corpus Poeticum Boreale, ii., 105. The raid seems also to be alluded to in the Lithsmen's Song (ibid., 107).

[127]Florence of Worcester,Chronicon, i., 176.

[128]The account in theChronicleof what occurred at Aylesford is ambiguous and has been variously interpreted: "and the King slew as many as he could come upon; and Eadric ealdorman turned against [or toward?] the king at Aylesford. Nor was there ever worse counsel adopted than that was." Some writers have interpreted this to mean that Eadric joined Edmund at Aylesford and not after Sherstone, as stated by Florence. But the Saxongewende ongeanhas a hostile rather than a favourable colour. The probabilities are that Eadric opposed Edmund's plans at Aylesford and thus rendered further pursuit impossible. Such is Florence of Worcester's version (Chronicon, i., 177). For a different view see Hodgkin (Pol. Hist. of Eng., i., 397) and Oman (England before the Norman Conquest, 580).

[129]Encomium Emmæ, ii., c. 12.

[130]The Encomiast admits that the tale is hard to believe, but avers that it is true (ii., c. 9). The story of the raven is old and occurs earlier in the English sources.

[131]Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1016. Florence of Worcester,Chronicon, i., 178.

[132]Snorre,Saga of Saint Olaf, c. 14.

[133]Jómsvikingasaga, c. 52.

[134]Encomium Emmæ, ii., c. 12.

[135]Encomium Emmæ, ii., c. 13.

[136]Probably not the isle of Olney, but some other islet that has since disappeared. See Oman,England before the Norman Conquest, 581.

[137]Henry of Huntingdon,Historia Anglorum, 185;Knytlingasaga, c. 16. The saga says distinctly that there was to be inheritance only if either died without children.

[138]Saga of Magnus the Good, c. 6.

[139]Florence of Worcester,Chronicon, i., 179.

[140]Sigeferth and Morcar were slain in Eadric's house at the Oxford gemot. (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 1015.)

[141]See Freeman (Norman Conquest, i., Note xx) whose argument seems conclusive.

[142]Encomium Emmæ, ii., c. 14.

[143]Gesta Regum, i., 213-214. The author merely tells us that Edmund's mother was of ignoble birth; but a woman of low degree would scarcely be made queen of England.

[144]Ethelred of Rievaux. See Freeman,Norman Conquest, i., Note ss.

[145]Kemble,Codex Diplomaticus, No. 1302.

For eight months after the death of Ethelred there was no king of England. Neither Edmund nor Canute had an incontestable claim to the royal title, as neither had been chosen by a properly constituted national assembly. There is some evidence that Edmund was crowned, perhaps in May, 1016[146]; but even consecration could hardly remove the defect in the elective title. And after the agreement of Olney, there was, for a few weeks, no English kingdom. But, in December, it was possible once more to reunite the distracted land. In the North of England there was no vacant kingship; only Wessex and East Anglia needed a ruler. As the latter region possessed a strong Scandinavian element that might be depended upon to declare for Canute, the only doubtful factor in the situation was theattitude of the nobility south of the Thames. Wessex, however, had more than once showed a desire to give up the struggle: the old spirit of independence was apparently crushed. London, the great rallying point of the national party, was in Canute's hands. Beyond the Thames were the camps of the dreaded host that had come from the North the year before. The Danish fleet still sailed the British seas. No trusted leader appeared to take up the fight for the house of Alfred; Ethelred's many sons seem nearly all to have perished, and only children or princes of doubtful ability remained as possible candidates for the kingship. In addition there was no doubt a feeling that England should be one realm. The accession of Canute was therefore inevitable.

The Dane evidently realised the strength of his position. There was consequently little need of hasty action; it was clearly best to observe constitutional forms and to give the representatives of the nation ample time to act. It was a Northern as well as a Saxon custom to celebrate the Yule-tide with elaborate and extended festivities; and there was every reason why Canute and his warriors in London should plan to make this year's celebration a memorable event. To these festivities, Canute evidently invited the magnates of England; for we learn that a midwinter gemot was held in London, at which the Danish pretender received universal recognition as king of all England.[147]

To say that this assembly elected a king would be incorrect; Canute gave the lords no opportunity co make an election. In a shrewd fashion he brought out the real or pretended fact that in the agreement of Deerhurst it was stipulated that the survivor should possess both crowns. Those who had witnessed the treaty were called on to state what had been said in the conference concerning Edmund's sons and brothers; whether any of them might be permitted to rule in England if Edmund should die first. They testified that they had sure knowledge that no authority was left to Edmund's brothers, and that Canute was to have the guardianship of Edmund's young sons until they were of sufficient age to claim the kingship. Florence of Worcester believes that the witnesses were bribed by Canute and perjured themselves grossly; but the probabilities are, that their statement was accurate. Canute's object in submitting the problem of the succession in the South to the witan seems to have been, not exactly to secure his own election, but rather to obtain the highest possible sanction for the agreement with Edmund.

To the Northern mind the expedient adopted was both legal and proper. We know very little about the constitutional framework and principles of the Scandinavian monarchies at this period; but, so far as we can discern, the elective principle played an incidental part only; the succession was in fact hereditary. To the Anglo-Saxons thewhole must have resolved itself into finding some legal form for surrender and submission. Oaths were taken and loyalty was pledged. Once more the Saxon began to enjoy real peace and security. At the same time, all the rejoicing can scarcely have been genuine; for English pride had received a wound that for some years refused to heal. It must also be said that the opening years of the new reign were not of such a character as to win the affections of unwilling subjects.

The task that the young monarch undertook in the early months of 1017 was one of peculiar difficulty. It must be remembered that his only right was that of the sword. Important, too, is the fact that at the time England was his only kingdom. As a landless prince, he had crossed the sea, landless except for possible rights in Norway; had led with him a host of adventurers most of whom were probably heathen; had wrested large areas from the native line of English Kings; and now he was in possession of the entire kingdom.

Something of a like nature occurred in 1066, when William of Normandy conquered England; but there are also notable differences. William was the lord of a vigorous duchy across the narrow Channel, in which he had a storehouse of energy that was always at his disposal. Young Canute had no such advantages. Before he was definitely recognised as king in the Danelaw, he had no territorial possessions from which to recruit andprovision his armies. Not till 1019 did he unite the crowns of England and Denmark.

Historians generally have appeared to believe that in governing his English kingdom, Canute pursued a conscious and well-defined course of action, a line of political purposes originating early in his reign. He is credited with the purpose of making England the central kingdom of an Anglo-Scandinavian empire, of governing this kingdom with the aid of Englishmen in preference to that of his own countrymen, of aiming to rule England as a king of the Saxon type. It is true chat before the close of his reign Canute made large use of native chiefs in the administration of the monarchy; but such was not the case in the earlier years. There were no prospects of empire in 1017 and 1018: his brother Harold still ruled in Denmark; the Norsemen were still loyal to the vigorous Olaf. And at no time did the kingdoms that he added later consider themselves as standing in a vassal relation to the English state. In Canute's initial years, we find no striving after good government, no dreams of imperial power. During these years his chief purpose was to secure the permanence and the stability of his new title and throne.

Nor should we expect any clear and definite policy in the rule of a king who was still inexperienced in dealing with the English constitution. At the time of his accession, Canute is thought to have been twenty-one or twenty-two yearsold.[148]Younger he could scarcely have been, nor is it likely that he was very much older. Ottar the Swart in theCanute's Praiseis emphatic on the point that Canute was unusually young for a successful conqueror: "Thou wast of no great age when thou didst put forth in thy ship; never younger king set out from home."[149]As Ottar's other patron, Olaf the Stout, was only twelve when he began his career as a viking, we should hardly expect the poet to call attention to Canute's youth if he had already reached manhood when he accompanied his father to England. The probabilities favour 995 as the year of his birth; if the date be correct he would be about seventeen in 1012, when the invasion was being planned, nineteen at the death of his father in 1014; and twenty-one (or twenty-two, as it was late in the year) when he became king of all England. But whatever his age, he was young in training for government. So far as we know, he could have had but little experience as a ruler before the autumn of 1016, when the battle of Ashington secured his position in England. His training had been for the career of a viking, a training that promised little for the future.

It seems, therefore, a safe assumption that in shaping his policy the King's decision would beinfluenced to a large degree by the advice of trusted counsellors. In the first year of Canute's reign, there stood about the throne three prominent leaders, three military chiefs, to whom in great measure the King owed his crown. There was the sly and jealous Eadric the Mercian, a man with varied experience in many fields, but for obvious reasons he did not enjoy the royal confidence. Closer to the King stood Eric, for fifteen years earl and viceroy in Norway, now the ruler of Northumbria. Eric was a man of a nobler character than was common among men of the viking type; but he can have known very little of English affairs, and for this reason, perhaps, Canute passed his kinsman by and gave his confidence to the lordly viking, Thurkil the Tall. For a stay of nearly ten years in England as viking invader, as chief of Ethelred's mercenaries, and as Canute's chief assistant in his campaign against the English, had surely given Thurkil a wide acquaintance among the magnates of the land and considerable insight into English affairs.

Whatever the reason for the King's choice, we seem to have evidence sufficient to allow the conclusion that for some years Thurkil held a position in the kingdom second only to that of the King himself. Wherever his name appears in Canute's charters among the earls who witness royal grants, it holds first place. In a royal proclamation that was issued in 1020, he seems to act on the King's behalf in the general administrationof justice, whenever royal interference should become necessary:

Should any one prove so rash, clerk or layman, Dane or Angle, as to violate the laws of the Church or the rights of my kingship or any secular statute, and refuse to do penance according to the instruction of my bishops, or to desist from his evil, then I request Thurkil the Earl, yea, even command him, to bend the offender to right, if he is able to do so.[150]

In case the Earl is unable to manage the business alone, Canute promises to assist. There is something in this procedure that reminds one of the later Norman official, the justiciar, who was chief of the administrative forces when the King was in England and governed as the King's lieutenant when the ruler was abroad. That Thurkil's dignity was not a new creation at the time of the proclamation is evident from the preamble, in which Canute sends "greetings to his archbishops and bishops and Thurkil earl and all his earls and all his subjects." The language of the preamble also suggests that Thurkil may have acted as the King's deputy during Canute's absence in Denmark. It is further to be noted that of all the magnates he alone is mentioned by name. In the account of the dedication of the church at Ashington later in the same year, Thurkil is again given prominent mention. In this instance general reference is made to a number of important officials,but Earl Thurkil and Archbishop Wulfstan are the only ones that the Chronicler mentions by name.[151]It is evident that the English, too, were impressed by the eminence of the tall earl.

The first and the most difficult problem that Canute and Thurkil had to solve was how to establish the throne among an unfriendly people; for the conquered Saxons cannot have regarded the Danish usurper with much affection. It is generally believed that Canute took up his residence in the old capital city of Winchester, though we do not know at what time this came to be the recognised residential town. It may be true, as is so often asserted, that Canute continued, even after other lands had been added to his dominions, to make England his home from personal choice; but it may also be true that he believed his presence necessary to hold Wessex in subjection. The revolutionary movements that came to the surface during the first few years of his reign had probably much to do with determining Canute's policies in these directions. It is a fact of great significance that during the first decade of his rule in England he was absent from the island twice only, so far as we know, and then during the winter months, when the chances of a successful uprising were most remote.[152]

Like the later William, Canute had his chiefs and followers to reward, and the process of payment could not be long delayed. The rewards took the form of actual wages, paid from new levies of Danegeld; confiscated lands, of which we do not hear very much, though seizure of land was doubtless not unknown, as it was not a Scandinavian custom to respect the property of an enemy; also official positions, especially the earl's office and dignity, which was reserved for the chiefs who had given the most effective aid. The payment of Danegeld was an old story in English history and the end was not yet. When we consider the really vast tribute that was levied from time to time and the great value of the precious metals in the Middle Ages, it becomes clear that many of the vikings who operated in England must have become relatively wealthy men. A large number evidently served in successive hosts and expeditions. A Swedish runic monument found in Uppland (the region north of Stockholm) relates that one Ulf shared three times in the distribution of Danegeld:

But Ulf has in England thrice taken "geld," the first time Tosti paid him, then Thurkil, and then Canute paid.[153]

Ulf was evidently one of the vikings who composed Thurkil's invading force and finally passed with their chief into Canute's service.

The earl's office was ancient in Scandinavia and counted very desirable. It did not quite correspond to that of the English ealdorman, as it usually implied a larger administrative area, a greater independence, and a higher social rank for the official thus honoured. The office was not new in England; for more than a century it had flourished in the Danelaw. In Ethelred's time such magnates as Uhtred in Northumbria and Ulfketel in East Anglia were earls rather than ealdormen.

The first recorded act of the new sovereign was the division of the kingdom into four great earldoms. Much has been made of this act in the past; the importance of the measure has been over-rated; the purpose of the King has been misunderstood. The act has been characterised as the culmination of a certain tendency in English constitutional development; as the expression of self-distrust on the part of the monarch; and much more. It seems, however, that Canute at this time did little more than to recognise thestatus quo. England was during the later years of Ethelred's reign virtually divided into four greatjurisdictions, three of which, Northumbria, Mercia, and East Anglia, were governed by the King's sons-in-law, Uhtred, Eadric, and Ulfketel. How much authority was assigned to each cannot be determined; but practically the earls must have enjoyed a large measure of independence. In the fight against the Danes, Uhtred seems to have taken but small part; Ulfketel comes into prominence only when East Anglia is directly attacked.

This arrangement, which was not accidental but historic, Canute had accepted before the reputed provincial division of 1017. Eadric had long been a power in parts of Mercia; any attempt to dislodge him at so early a moment would have been exceedingly impolitic. Eric was already earl of Northumbria, having succeeded the unfortunate Uhtred, perhaps in the spring of 1016. It is only natural that Canute should reserve the rule of Wessex to himself, at least for a time. Provision naturally had to be made for Thurkil; and as the earl of East Anglia had fallen at Ashington, it was convenient to fill the vacancy and honour the old viking at the same time.[154]

It seems never to have been Canute's policy to keep England permanently divided into four great provinces; what evidence we have points to a wholly different purpose. During the first decadeof the new reign, fifteen earls appear in the charters as witnesses or otherwise. Three of these may, however, have been visiting magnates from elsewhere in the King's dominions, and in one instance we may have a scribal error. There remain, then, the names of eleven lords who seem to have enjoyed the earl's dignity during this period. Of these eleven names, seven are Scandinavian and four Anglo-Saxon; but of the latter group only one appears with any decided permanence.[155]

Thurkil, while he was still in England, headed the list. Thurkil was a Dane of noble birth, the son of Harold who was earl in Scania. He was a typical viking, tall, strong, and valorous, and must have been a masterly man, one in whom warriors readily recognised the qualities of chieftainship. He had part in the ill-fated expedition that ended in the crushing defeat of Hjörunga Bay. He also fought at Swald, where he is said to have served on the ship of his former enemy, Eric the Earl.[156]In 1009 he transferred his activities to England and from that year he remained almost continuously on the island till his death about fifteen years later.

The old viking had several claims on the King's gratitude. Had he not deserted Ethelred at such an opportune moment, Canute might never have won the English crown. The statement of the sagas that Thurkil was Canute's foster-father hasbeen referred to elsewhere. The foster-relationship, if the sagas are correct, would not only help to explain how Thurkil came to hold such eminent positions in Canute's English and Danish kingdoms, but may also account for the confidence that Canute reposed in Thurkil's son Harold, who may have been the King's foster-brother. The battles of Sherstone and Ashington no doubt also had a share in securing pre-eminence for the tall pirate. Sherstone, says the Encomiast, gained for Thurkil a large share of the fatherland.[157]He is prominently mentioned as one of those most eager to fight at Ashington, especially after it was reported that the raven had appeared with proper gestures on the Danish banner.[158]

In his old age Thurkil married an Englishwoman, Edith, probably one of Ethelred's daughters, the widow of Earl Eadric.[159]He ruled as English earl from 1017 to 1021. After Canute's return from Denmark in 1020, some misunderstanding seems to have arisen between him and the old war-chief; for toward the close of the next year Thurkil was exiled. The cause for this is not known; perhaps Canute feared his growing influence,especially after his marriage to the former King's daughter. A reconciliation was brought about a year later; but for some reason the King preferred to leave him as his lieutenant in Denmark, and he was never restored to his English dignities.

Eric, Earl of Northumbria, governed this region from 1016 to 1023. He seems to have been Earl Hakon's oldest son, and is said to have been of bastard birth, the son of a low-born woman, who had attracted the Earl in his younger years. He grew up to be extremely handsome and clever, but never enjoyed his father's good-will.[160]The circumstances of Eric's promotion to the Northern earldom have been discussed in an earlier chapter. As the Scandinavian colonies north of the Humber were Norwegian rather than Danish, the appointment of a Norse ruler was doubtless a popular act.

Eadric was allowed to continue as governor of Mercia. Whether all the old Mercian region made one earldom is uncertain; most likely it did not extend to the western limits, as several smaller earldoms appear to have been located along the Welsh border. For one year only was Eadric the Grasper permitted to enjoy his dignities; at the first opportunity Canute deprived him not only of honours but of life.

Eglaf, Thurkil's old companion in arms, seems to have been given territories to rule in the lower Severn Valley.[161]Eglaf was one of the leaders inthe great expedition of 1009. He was evidently one of those who entered Ethelred's service when peace was made; but during the closing years of the conflict, he was doubtless fighting for Canute. He was consequently one of the chiefs who might claim a particular reward. He was also of high lineage, the son of a powerful Danish chief, Thorgils Sprakaleg, and the brother of Ulf, who was married to Canute's sister Estrid.

In the Worcester country an Earl Hakon was placed in control. He was evidently Eric's son and Canute's nephew, the young Hakon whom King Olaf drove out of Norway in the autumn of 1015. The youthful earl (he was probably not more than twenty years old in 1017, perhaps even younger) is described as an exceedingly handsome man with "hair that was long and fair like silk"[162]; but warfare was evidently not to his taste. For a decade or more he remained in Canute's service in England. In 1026, hostilities broke out between Norway and Denmark; the result was the final expulsion of King Olaf and the restoration of Hakon to his Norse vice-royalty. Soon afterwards he perished in shipwreck.

Godwin is the first English earl of importance to appear among Canute's magnates. From 1019 to the close of the reign his name appears in almost every charter, and invariably as earl or with some corresponding title. The fact that Godwin found it possible to be present so frequently when grantswere to be witnessed would indicate that he could not have been located far away from the local court; perhaps he was closely attached to it. Though his ancestry is a matter of doubt, he was probably not connected with the Old English aristocracy. This defect Canute remedied by giving him a noble Danish woman of his own household for wife.[163]Godwin was consequently closely associated with the new dynasty.

Of the remaining magnates, Ethelwerd, Leofwine, Godric, Ulf, and Ranig, little is really known. Ethelwerd seems to have had some authority in the extreme Southwest. Ranig's earldom was the modern shire of Hereford. There is nothing to indicate what territories were controlled by Godric and Ulf. Leofwine probably succeeded to Eadric's position as chief ruler in Mercia. In the list we should probably include Eadulf Cudel who seems to have succeeded to some power north of the Tees after the murder of his brother Uhtred[164]; but whether he was under the lordship of Eric or held directly from Canute cannot be known.

These were the men with whom Canute shared his authority during the first ten years of his reign. It will be seen that the more important places in the local government were given to Danes and Northmen. So far as we know, only two ofEthelred's ealdormen were retained in their offices[165]; of these the one soon suffered exile, while the other appears to have played but a small part in the councils of Canute. Two appointments were made from the native population, those of Godwin and Leofwine. In the case of Godwin it is to be observed that he was bound to the new dynasty by the noble ties of marriage. As to Leofwine's ancestry we are not informed; but there are indications that some of his forefathers may have been Northmen.[166]

The more prominent of Canute's earls were drawn from three illustrious families in the North, one Norwegian and two Danish. Thurkil's descent from the Scanian earls has already been noted. Eric and his son Hakon represented the lordly race of Earl Hakon the Bad. A great Danish chief, Thorgils Sprakaleg, had two sons who bore the earl's title in England, Ulf and Eglaf, a son-in-law, Godwin, and a few years later a nephew, Siward the Strong, the lord of Northumbria. Two of these earls were married to sisters of Canute: Eric to Gytha, and Ulf to Estrid. Godwin was married to Canute's kinswoman. Hakon was the King's nephew. Thurkil was his reputed foster-father. It seems thatCanute at first had in mind to establish in England a new aristocracy of Scandinavian origin, bound to the throne by the noble ties of kinship and marriage. To this aristocracy the North contributed noble and vigorous blood.

In the King's household, so far as we can learn anything about it, we find the same preference for men of Northern ancestry. Ordinarily, the thegns who witnessed royal grants may be taken to have been warriors or officials connected with the royal court. The signatures of more than half of these show names that are unmistakably Scandinavian. Usually, the Northmen sign before their Saxon fellows. The Old Norse language was probably used to a large extent at court; at least we know that the scalds who sang in praise of the "greatest king under heaven" composed their lays in Canute's native language.[167]

The year 1017, which witnessed the exaltation of the foreigners into English officialdom, also beheld a series of executions that still further weakened the English by removing their natural leaders. Most of these are associated with a Christmas gemot, when Canute was celebrating the first anniversary of his rule as king of England. Of the victims the most famous was Eadric, the Earl of Mercia. For ten years he had been a power in his region, though at no time does itappear that his word of honour or his pledge of loyalty could have had any value. In all the English sources he is represented as endowed with the instincts of treason, though the Encomiast, is careful to apply no term stronger than turncoat. At the same time, it is clear that Eadric the Grasper was a man of real abilities; in spite of the fact that he held allegiance lightly, he seems to have retained his influence to the last. He was, says one writer,

a man of low origin, one whom the tongue had brought riches and rank, clever in wit, pleasant in speech, but surpassing all men of the time in envy, perfidy, crime, and cruelty.[168]

The murder of Eadric was directly in line with Canute's policy of building up a new Scandinavian aristocracy, devoted to himself, and endowed with large local authority. The new order could not be built on such men as Eadric; by his marriage to Ethelred's daughter he was too closely connected with the old order of things. Furthermore, a man who found it so easy to be disloyal could not safely be entrusted with such great territorial authority as the earlship of Mercia. There had been in this same year extensive plotting among the survivors of the Anglian nobility, and it is likely that Eadric was involved in this. It is also related that the Earl was not satisfied withthe King's reward,[169]which may mean that he objected to having independent earldoms carved out of Western Mercia. At any rate, Canute was not reluctant to remove him. Eric appears to have acted as executioner; and the career of the Grasper came to a sudden end. The murder, so far as we can see, was popular; among the men of power Eadric can have had few friends or perhaps none at all.

Three other lords are mentioned as having suffered death on the same occasion: Northman, the son of Leofwine, and two lords from the Southwest.[170]There can be little doubt that these men were convicted of treacherous plotting and that the punishment was regarded as merited. It is a remarkable fact that Northman's death did not alienate his family from the new dynasty: his father Leofwine succeeded to Eadric's dignities and his brother Leofric to Northman's own place of influence; "and the king afterwards held him very dear."[171]

Some of these executions should probably be placed in connection with certain measures taken against the former dynasty. Here again we have anxious care to secure the new throne. Six sons appear to have been born to Ethelred before his marriage to the Norman Emma; but of these only two or at most three seem to have survived theirfather. After Edmund Ironside's death, Edwy alone remained[172]; he is said to have been Edmund's full brother and a youth of promise. Evidently Canute intended to spare his life, but ordered him to go into exile. But the Etheling secretly returned to England and hid for a time in Tavistock monastery. He was evidently discovered, and Canute procured his death.[173]As Tavistock is in Devonshire, the execution of the two magnates from the Southwest may readily be explained on the supposition that they were plotting in Edwy's favour.

The London assembly seems to have assumed that certain rights were reserved to the infant sons of Edmund, but that the guardianship of the children had been given to Canute. They were scarcely a problem in 1017; still, it was necessary to make them permanently harmless. It will be remembered that Edmund married Sigeferth's widow some time in the year 1015, perhaps in early summer. It is, therefore, extremely doubtful whether the two boys, Edward and Edmund, were both the sons of the unfortunate Aldgyth; if they were they must have been twins, or the younger must have been born a posthumous child, some time in 1017, the year of their banishment.But if Florence's account is trustworthy, the status of the two was discussed at the Christmas gemot following Edmund's death in 1016.

To slay the children of a "brother" who had committed them to his care and protection must have seemed to Canute a rude and perhaps risky procedure; it was therefore thought best to send them out of the land. Accordingly the ethelings were sent to the "king of the Slavs,"[174]who was instructed to remove them from the land of the living. This particular king was evidently Canute's maternal uncle, the mighty Boleslav, duke and later king of Poland. Boleslav took pity on the poor children and failed to dispose of them as requested. In 1025, he was succeeded by his son Mieczislav, who entered into close relations with King Stephen of Hungary.[175]It was probably some time after 1025, therefore, that the ethelings were transferred to the Hungarian court, where they grew to manhood. After forty years of exile, one of them returned to England, but died soon after he had landed.

It seems to have been Canute's purpose finally to destroy the house of Alfred to the last male descendant. The two most dangerous heirs were, however, beyond his reach: the sons of Ethelredand Emma were safe with their mother in Normandy. There was close friendship between the lords of Rouen and the rulers of the North; still, Duke Richard could not be expected to ignore the claims of his own kinsmen. So long as the ethelings remained in Normandy, there would always be danger of a Norman invasion combined with a Saxon revolt in the interest of the fugitive princes, Alfred and Edward.

Canute was a resourceful king: these princes, too, could be rendered comparatively harmless. If their mother Emma should be restored to her old position as reigning queen of England, her Norman relatives might find it inconvenient to support an English uprising. This seems to be the true motive for Canute's seemingly unnatural marriage. Historians have seen in it a hope and an attempt to conciliate the English people, as in this way the new King would become identified with the former dynasty. But such a theory does scant justice to the moral sense of the Anglo-Saxons. Furthermore, neither Ethelred nor Emma had ever enjoyed real popularity. There is no doubt that a princess of the blood royal could have been found for a consort, if the prime consideration had been to contract a popular marriage. It seems rather that in this matter Canute acted in defiance of English public sentiment and for the express purpose of averting a real danger from beyond the Channel. Apparently, Emma took kindly to Canute's plans, for sheis said to have stipulated that if sons were born to them, they should be preferred to Canute's older children[176]; thus by inference the rights of her sons in Normandy were abandoned.

Earlier in his career, Canute had formed an irregular connection with an English or Anglo-Danish woman of noble birth, Elgiva, the daughter of Elfhelm, who at one time ruled in Deira as ealdorman. Her mother's name is given as Ulfrun, a name that is Scandinavian in both its component parts.[177]The family was evidently not strictly loyal to the Saxon line, for in 1006, just after Sweyn's return to Denmark, Elfhelm was slain and his two sons blinded by royal orders.[178]Elgiva must have had relatives at Northampton, for the Chronicler knows her as the woman from Northampton. She was a woman of great force of character, ambitious and aggressive, though not always tactful, as appears from her later career in Norway. She was never Canute's wife; but, in the eleventh century, vague ideas ruled concerning the marriage relation, even among Christians. Her acquaintance with Canute doubtless began in 1013, when he was left in charge of the camp and fleet at Gainsborough. Two sons she bore to him, Harold Harefoot and Sweyn. On Emma's returnto England, Elgiva seems to have been sent with her children to Denmark. We find her later taking an active part in the politics of Wendland, Norway, and probably of England.

The Queen, who now came back from Normandy to marry her husband's old enemy, was also a masterful woman. If heredity can be stated in arithmetical terms, she was more than half Danish, as her mother Gunnor was clearly a Danish, woman while her father had a non-Danish mother and also inherited some non-Danish blood on the paternal side. She was evidently beautiful, gifted, and attractive: her flattering Encomiast describes her as of great beauty and wisdom.[179]But the finer instincts that we commonly associate with womanhood cannot have been highly developed in her case; what we seem to find is love of life, a delight in power, and an overpowering ambition to rule. At the time of her second marriage she was a mature woman; it is not likely that she was less than thirty years old, perhaps she was nearer forty. At all events, she must have been several years older than Canute. Two children were born to this marriage: Harthacanute, who ruled briefly in Denmark and England after the death of his father and of his half-brother Harold; and Gunhild, who was married to the Emperor Henry III. Emma lived to a ripe old age and died in 1052, fifty years after her first marriage.

The wedding was celebrated in July, 1017, thebride presumably coming from Normandy. The object sought was attained: for more than ten years there seems to have been unbroken peace between England and Normandy. When trouble finally arose after the accession of Robert the Devil, Canute was strong enough to dispense with further alliances.

One of the chief necessities was some form of a standing army, a force that the King could depend upon in case of invasion or revolt. Much reliance could obviously not be placed on the old military system; nor could the army of conquest be retained indefinitely. In 1018, or perhaps late in the preceding year, steps were taken to dismiss the Scandinavian host.[180]It has been conjectured that this was done out of consideration for the Saxon race; the presence of the conquerors was an insult to the English people. It had clearly become necessary to disband the viking forces, but for other reasons. A viking host was in its nature an army of conquest, not of occupation, except when the warriors were permitted to seize the land, which was evidently not Canute's intention. In a land of peace, as Canute intended England to be, such a host could not nourish. It should also be remembered that a large part was composed of borrowed troops furnished by the rulers of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden; these could not be kept indefinitely. Another Danegeld was levied, 82,500 pounds in all, to pay off thehost; and most of the Northmen departed, to the evident satisfaction of all concerned.

The dismissal of one host was followed by the immediate reorganisation of another. Far more important than the departure of the fleet is the fact that the crews of forty ships remained in the royal service: this would mean a force of between three thousand and four thousand men. But the North knew no continuous body of warriors except the military households of chiefs and kings; such a household was now to be organised, but one that was far greater and more splendid than any organisation of the sort known in Scandinavia. According to Sveno's history, Canute had it proclaimed that only those would be admitted to his new guard who were provided with two-edged swords having hilts inlaid with gold.[181]Sveno also tells us that the wealthy warriors made such haste to procure properly ornamented weapons that the sound of the swordsmith's hammer was heard all through the land. In this way, the King succeeded in giving his personal guard an aristocratic stamp.

The guard of housecarles or "thingmen," as they were called in the North, was organised as a guild or military fraternity, of which the King ranked as a member, though naturally a most important one. In many respects its rulesremind us of the regulations enforced in the Jomburg brotherhood, though its organisation was probably merely typical of the viking fraternities of the age. The purpose of the guild laws, as reported by Sveno and Saxo, was to promote a spirit of fellowship among the members, to secure order in the guard, and to inculcate proper behaviour in the royal garth. When the housecarles were invited to the King's tables, they were seated according to their eminence in warfare, priority of service, or nobility of birth. To be removed to a lower place was counted a disgrace. In addition to daily fare and entertainment, the warriors received wages which were paid monthly, we are told. The bond of service was not permanent, but could be dissolved on New Year's Day only. All quarrels were decided in an assembly of the housecarles in the presence of the King. Members guilty of minor offences, such as failing to care properly for the horse of a fellow guardsman, were assigned lower places at the royal tables. If any one was thrice convicted of such misdeeds, he was given the last and lowest place, where no one was to communicate with him in any way, except that the feasters might throw bones at him if they were so disposed. Whoever should slay a comrade should lose his head or go into exile. Treason was punished by death and the confiscation of the criminal's property.[182]

These laws were put into writing several generationsafter the guard was formed, and it is not likely that all existed from the very beginning. There is, however, nothing in the rules that might not have applied in Canute's own day. It is said that the King himself was the first who seriously violated the guard-laws, in that he slew a housecarle in a moment of anger. Repentance came swiftly; the guard was assembled; kneeling the King confessed his guilt and requested punishment. But the laws gave the King the power of judgment in such cases, and so it must be in this instance as in others. Forty marks was the customary fine, but in this case the King levied nine times that amount and added nine marks as a gift of honour. This fine of 369 marks was divided into three parts: one to go to the heirs of the deceased; one to the guard; and one to the King. But Canute gave his share to the Church and the poor.[183]

Though the housecarles are presumed to have possessed horses, the guard was in no sense a cavalry force. Horses were for use on the march, for swift passage from place to place, not for charging on the field. The housecarles were heavily armed, as we know from the description of a ship that Earl Godwin presented to Harthacanute as a peace offering a few years after Canute'sdeath. Eighty warriors, housecarles no doubt, seeing that it was a royal ship, manned the dragon,

of whom each one had on each arm a golden arm-ring weighing sixteen ounces, a triple corselet, on the head a helmet in part overlaid with gold; each was girded with a sword that was golden-hilted and bore a Danish ax inlaid with silver and gold hanging from the left shoulder; the left hand held the shield with gilded boss and rivets; in the right hand lay the spear that the Angles call theœtgar.[184]

It is not to be supposed that the whole guard was always at the court—it was distributed in the strong places throughout the kingdom,[185]especially no doubt in the South. It seems likely that individual housecarles might have homes of their own; at any rate, many of them in time came into possession of English lands as we know from Domesday.[186]No doubt Anglo-Saxon warriors were enrolled in the guard, but in its earlier years, at least, the greater number must have been of Scandinavian ancestry. In the province of Uppland, Sweden, a runic monument has been found that was raised by two sons in memory of their father, who "sat out west in thinglith."[187]As thinglith was the Old Norse name for Canute's corps of housecarles, we have here contemporarymention of a Swede who served in the guard. Another stone from the same province records the fact that Ali who raised it "collected tribute for Canute in England."[188]Housecarles were sometimes employed as tax collectors, and it seems probable that Ali, too, was a member of the great corps. It is likely that housecarles are also alluded to in the following Scanian inscription:

Sweyn and Thurgot raised this monument in memory of Manna and Sweyn. God help their souls well. But they lie buried in London.[189]

The sagas are evidently correct in stating that the force of housecarles "had been chosen from many lands, though chiefly from those of the Danish [Old Norse] tongue."

So long had the wealth of England been regarded as legitimate plunder, that the Scandinavian pirates found it difficult to realise that raids in South Britain were things of the past. They now had to reckon, not merely with a sluggish and disorganised militia, but with a strong force of professional warriors in the service and pay of a capable and determined king. In the year 1018, says the German chronicler Thietmar of Merseburg,

the crews of thirty viking ships have been slain in England, thanks be to God, by the son of Sweyn, the king of the English; and he, who earlier with his father brought invasion and long-continued destruction upon the land, is now its sole defender.[190]

This seems to have been the first and last attempt at piracy in England during the reign of Canute. So far as his dominions extended, viking practices were outlawed. The check that the movement received in 1018 was the beginning of a rapid decline in its strength, and before the close of Canute's reign, the profession of the sea-king was practically destroyed.

The Welsh, too, seem to have found it hard to repress their old habits of raiding the English frontier. It was probably this fact that induced Canute to establish so many earldoms in the Southwest, particularly in the Severn Valley. A few years after the signal defeat of the viking fleet, apparently in 1022, Eglaf, one of the earls on the Welsh border, harried the lands of Southwestern Wales.[191]As the sources nowhere intimate that Canute ever planned to conquer Wales, and as this was evidently the year of Canute's absence in the Baltic lands, the conclusion must be that this expedition was of a punitive character. The Angles and Saxons were soon to learn that the new régime meant a security for the property as well as the persons of loyal and peaceful citizens, such as they had not enjoyed for more than a generation.

Back to Index Next