Anglo-Danish Empire - A Companion to the Reign of King Cnut the Great

["Michael Treschow Chapter 6 \u00c6thelred\u2019s Death and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle\u2019s Tone The \u00c6thelredian annalist, upon recording the English king\u2019s death during the eventful year of 1016, comments that \u201che geheold his rice mid myclum ges- wince \u204a earfo\u00f0nessum \u00fea hwile \u00f0e his lif w\u00e6s\u201d (he held his kingdom amidst great affliction and tribulations all his life long).1 Some critics take this com- ment as an expression of sympathy for the hapless king.2 In its rhetorical con- text, however, it applies more forcefully to \u00c6thelred\u2019s traumatized kingdom. The comment is retrospective: \u00c6thelred\u2019s regal troubles denote his people\u2019s troubles, as reiterated again and again in the preceding narrative. The sympa- thetic tone at \u00c6thelred\u2019s death arises in response to the preceding account of his reign. What evokes pity, then, is less the king\u2019s sorry life than the miseries suffered by his nation for nearly three decades. Why does the annalist recollect these miseries here only obliquely, even though he invokes them frequently be- forehand? Because it is enough, more than enough, merely to nod towards them. For the attuned reader they are both known and felt. Inherent in this rhe- torical moment is the trauma of the atrocities it looks back to. Varied Readings of the \u00c6thelredian Annalist Although Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the most part is terse and laconic, the \u00c6thelredian annalist (whose annals cover the years 983\u20131022 in the Chronicle\u2019s C, D, and E texts) has a more expressive style and a distinct authorial voice. His account of those years has provoked a variety of responses. Sir Frank Stenton, in his landmark study of Anglo-Saxon history, comments upon this style with a disapproving assessment of the writer behind it. While he expresses an histori- an\u2019s appreciation for this \u201cfull and contemporary narrative\u201d of \u00c6thelred\u2019s reign, he lacks confidence in its author\u2019s judgment: 1 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, 101 (s.a. 1016). Unless otherwise indicated, quotations from the ASC come from this edition of the C text. 2 See, for instance, Keynes, \u201cDeclining Reputation,\u201d 236, and The Diplomas, 227; and Roach, \u00c6thelred the Unready, 308. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1515\/9781501513336-007","130 Michael Treschow The anonymous monk of Abingdon who set down year by year his tale of war and misery, the treachery of one leader and the fruitless courage of another, has drawn a picture of life in his generation which may be criticised, but can never be ignored. No one who has followed the sequence of events in his restrained and sardonic prose can fail to receive the impression of an ancient and rich society, helpless before a derisive enemy because its leaders were incapable of government. It is unlikely that the author of these annals knew much about the world, and his criticism of public men is often short-sighted. He was too ready to impute treachery or cowardice to a leader who avoided contact with the enemy. Towards the end of his narrative he becomes querulous instead of ironical, and reckless in his allegations of treason.3 So Stenton writes in the first edition of Anglo-Saxon England, published in 1943, during World War II. The wording remains unchanged in the second edition (1947).4 However, in the third edition (published posthumously in 1971), there is one small, but telling, adjustment: instead of \u201chas drawn\u201d he now writes \u201chad drawn a picture of life.\u201d5 Stenton\u2019s use of the present-perfect tense in the two earlier editions illustrates the immediacy of this narrative for him when he first wrote this history. This immediacy is also evident in his statement that the annalist \u201cbecomes querulous instead of ironical.\u201d Stenton hears the anony- mous monk\u2019s plaintive voice but does not approve. He would have preferred him to remain sardonic. His privileging of irony over complaint does not ac- knowledge the famed melancholic tone of Old English literature at large. Sten- ton\u2019s criticism might seem stereotypical of his generation: the annalist\u2019s upper lip is not properly stiff. But there may be more at work here than modern British sen- sibilities. It is worth recalling the times through which Stenton was living when the the first two editions were published, during and just after World War II, with its great horrors and atrocities: not only in battle at a distant front, not only be- hind enemy lines in death camps, but also in the extensive bombing of civilians in both England and Germany. Cathy Caruth speaks of traumatic memory as tot- tering \u201cbetween remembrance and erasure, producing a history that is, in its very events, a kind of inscription of the past; but also a history constituted by the era- sure of its traces.\u201d6 Stenton\u2019s criticism of \u201cthe anonymous monk\u201d reflects an im- pulse to devalue emotional memory that is perhaps born out of reaction to his own historical circumstances. The same year that Stenton\u2019s third edition was published, Cecily Clark\u2019s arti- cle on style in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle appeared. In her survey of the Chroni- cle\u2019s different voices, she briefly singles out the \u00c6thelredian annalist\u2019s unusual 3 Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 1st ed. (1943), 386. 4 Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 2nd ed. (1947), 388. 5 Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd ed. (1971), 394. 6 Caruth, Literature in the Ashes of History, 210.","Chapter 6 \u00c6thelred\u2019s Death and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle\u2019s Tone 131 \u201cliterary craft,\u201d especially in regard to affect.7 Clark has nothing against the an- nalist\u2019s \u201cemotional range,\u201d \u201cheightened emotion,\u201d and \u201cemotive rhetoric.\u201d8 A few years later, Simon Keynes, in his reassessment of \u00c6thelred\u2019s poor reputation, agrees with Clark that the \u00c6thelredian annals \u201cdiscard the laconicism associated with the writing of annals . . . to adopt a more literary style than had been prac- tised in the earlier parts of the Chronicle.\u201d9 He adds, however, that this annalist \u201callows himself to indulge his literary pretensions.\u201d10 This remark reduces the annalist\u2019s literary affect to affectation. Not surprisingly, Keynes dismisses that to which Clark drew attention: the emotional tenor of this annalist\u2019s work. His inter- est is in the mechanics of its narrative coherence, which lies in \u201cthe occurrence of certain turns of phrase time and again in successive annals, binding the whole together as if it formed a continuous narrative.\u201d11 Like Stenton, Keynes expresses mixed feelings about the value of this narrative. He sums it up as \u201ca personal and perhaps idiosyncratic view of events,\u201d adding that, despite \u201cits possible im- perfections . . ., we are left with nothing better.\u201d12 Clark, however, had summa- rized the annalist\u2019s work more generously, with a moment of appreciation for its affective qualities: \u201cthe value . . . of these annals lies in rendering, with literary skill, but without intellectual sophistication, the feelings of an ordinary observer of the events recorded.\u201d13 There is no longer a general consensus that this \u201cordinary observer\u201d was a \u201cmonk of Abingdon,\u201d though most still assume that he was a monk. Katherine O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, in her edition of the Chronicle\u2019s C text, tentatively suggests that he was from Canterbury, while allowing that Keynes \u201cargues for London\u201d and that David Dumville is agnostic about the annalist\u2019s provenance.14 There is one cer- tainty, however, about this annalist: he composed this narrative before the year 1023, in which Archbishop \u00c6lfheah\u2019s relics were translated from London to Canter- bury.15 Hence the common understanding that this narrative was written by a wit- ness to the troubles of \u00c6thelred\u2019s reign, which ended on April 23, 1016. Some have formed strong opinions about this witness\u2019s underlying purpose in composing these annals. Alice Sheppard argues that they level blame at 7 Clark, \u201cNarrative Mode of The Chronicle,\u201d 14. 8 Clark, \u201cNarrative Mode of The Chronicle,\u201d 13\u201314. 9 Keynes, The Diplomas, 230. 10 Keynes, The Diplomas, 231. 11 Keynes, The Diplomas, 231. 12 Keynes, The Diplomas, 236. 13 Clark, \u201cNarrative Mode of The Chronicle,\u201d 15. 14 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, lxvii; see also Keynes, The Diplomas, 232. 15 Keynes, The Diplomas, 231.","132 Michael Treschow \u00c6thelred in order to form an argument on behalf of Cnut. The annalist, she claims, made \u201ca deliberate . . . decision to write a salvation history in which he narrates the wrongdoing for which he holds \u00c6thelred responsible.\u201d16 Sheppard\u2019s reading of this salvation history operates on the simplest terms. \u00c6thelred is a rex iniquus. On account of his wickedness he is \u201cresponsible for the loss of the kingdom.\u201d17 This depiction of \u00c6thelred as incompetent and abusive is, according to Sheppard, \u201ca deliberate construction,\u201d in effect propaganda.18 The purpose of the \u201c\u00c6thelred- Cnut annalist\u201d is to \u201clegitimize Cnut\u201d and promote his successful \u201cperformance of his lordship obligations\u201d in contrast with \u00c6thelred\u2019s failure.19 Courtnay Konshuh also suggests that these annals were written on behalf of Cnut, although her read- ing of the annalist\u2019s critique runs counter to Sheppard\u2019s. According to Konshuh, these annals do not blame the king for England\u2019s sufferings, but rather the \u201cfailed army leadership and unanr\u00e6dnes (foolishness) among the nobility.\u201d20 This annalist did not create \u201cour negative impression of \u00c6thelred,\u201d which Konshuh credits to later chroniclers.21 \u00c6thelred, unlike his advisors, gets a \u201crather neutral portrayal,\u201d in parallel with \u201cthe neutral and at times even positive Viking portrayal.\u201d22 Accord- ing to Konshuh, this supposedly even-handed approach serves to promote Cnut\u2019s project of \u201cintegrating both Anglo-Saxon and Danish cultures\u201d; the annals \u201ccould not criticise Anglo-Saxon kingship too directly, as it was this basis which Cnut sought to build his own kingship upon.\u201d23 These readings seem deaf to the annal- ist\u2019s tone. Their varied claims about his message ignore his repetitive account of national trauma and his final comment on \u00c6thelred\u2019s reign: that \u201che geheold his rice mid myclum geswince \u204a earfo\u00f0nessum \u00fea hwile \u00f0e his lif w\u00e6s.\u201d Levi Roach\u2019s recent study of \u00c6thelred does indeed take note of this final comment, but not of its rhetorical import. Instead, he reflects on the ethical meaning of \u00c6thelred\u2019s death in an attempt to understand it as either a \u201cgood death\u201d or a \u201cbad death,\u201d concluding that the annals offer no help on the ques- tion: \u201cthe chronicler, ever one to see clouds beside silver linings, has little to say about the event, which may itself be significant.\u201d24 How the annalist\u2019s reti- cence may in itself be significant, Roach does not pursue, nor does he explain 16 Sheppard, Families of the King, 85. 17 Sheppard, Families of the King, 86. 18 Sheppard, Families of the King, 86. 19 Sheppard, Families of the King, 94. 20 Konshuh, \u201cAnr\u00e6d in their Unr\u00e6d,\u201d 158. 21 Konshuh, \u201cAnr\u00e6d in their Unr\u00e6d,\u201d 158. 22 Konshuh, \u201cAnr\u00e6d in their Unr\u00e6d,\u201d 158. 23 Konshuh, \u201cAnr\u00e6d in their Unr\u00e6d,\u201d 159. 24 Roach, \u00c6thelred the Unready, 309.","Chapter 6 \u00c6thelred\u2019s Death and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle\u2019s Tone 133 how this amounts to \u201cseeing the clouds\u201d \u2013 that is, to a pessimistic outlook. Roach\u2019s inverted cloud clich\u00e9 makes for a belittling remark not at all apt to the moment. What silver linings shone when \u00c6thelred died? Cnut and his fleet were making for London, soon to besiege it; \u00c6thelred\u2019s son Edmund would die before the year\u2019s end; English resistance to the long-standing Danish invasion would collapse; and Cnut would become king and conqueror. Elaine Treharne has noted among historians of our time a tendency not to ac- knowledge the trauma that the English experienced around the time of Cnut\u2019s con- quest.25 For her part, she calls the annals for this period \u201ca dramatic and intense account of the suffering of the English,\u201d26 and wonders \u201cwhy scholars do so much to erase those who were already half-erased \u2013 the silent, voiceless human hubbub behind the land-grabbers, psalm-singers and sword-wielders.\u201d27 Treharne\u2019s concern in Living through Conquest is with the aftermath of conquest, rather than with its prelude. \u00c6thelred\u2019s reign, therefore, is not her focus. Her use of the Chronicle must contend with the annalist\u2019s more muted and restrained voice in the latter section of his annals. She argues that the sparseness of the Chronicle\u2019s entries during Cnut\u2019s reign, along with the general decline in literary output and book production in this period, reflects the trauma of shock and loss.28 Gaps in documentary evidence, \u201cthe literal lacunae,\u201d make absent and silent \u201cthe sufferers themselves, particularly the faceless (noseless, earless) dispossessed and \u2018wretched people.\u2019\u201d29 Treharne\u2019s own concerns \u201cinsist on a consideration of the perspective of the normally silenced sur- vivor, a \u2018politics of witness,\u2019 or \u2018a representation of the unrepresentable.\u2019\u201d30 The muted account of what Treharne calls \u201ccontinuing cultural trauma\u201d during Cnut\u2019s reign31 reverberates with the annalist\u2019s earlier and more fulsome witness to the \u201cun- representable\u201d during \u00c6thelred\u2019s reign. Treharne herself expresses confidence in this annalist\u2019s overall witness: \u201cAmidst the noise of the competing voices embedded in this monastic narration is the assured statement of the historian, self-authorized to recount the formative events of the nation.\u201d32 25 Treharne, Living Through Conquest, 11\u201312. 26 Treharne, Living Through Conquest, 54. 27 Treharne, Living Through Conquest, 55. 28 Treharne, Living Through Conquest, 11. 29 Treharne, Living Through Conquest, 55. 30 Treharne, Living Through Conquest, 55. 31 Treharne, Living Through Conquest, 67. 32 Treharne, Living Through Conquest, 55.","134 Michael Treschow Salvation History? This narration of formative events stands as a coherent and discrete section of the Chronicle, common to its C, D, and E texts, written in the early years of Cnut\u2019s reign.33 When it takes up the Chronicle\u2019s narrative at the year 983, preceding events have been fraught with forebodings of divine wrath. Not far from Edgar\u2019s death in 975 and Edward\u2019s martyrdom in 978, the Chronicle has reported on a severe famine in 976 and Viking raids beginning anew in the early 980s. Contex- tually, the two kings\u2019 deaths are explications of divine wrath. In its entry for 975, the C text reports on the disasters of that year as \u201cwaldendes wracu\u201d (the ven- geance of the Lord). In the entry for 979, the D and E texts speak of \u201cse uplica wrecend\u201d (the heavenly avenger) and they pronounce, in regard to the Edward the Martyr, that \u201chine hafa\u00f0 his heofonlic f\u00e6der swy\u00f0e wrecan\u201d (his heavenly fa- ther has greatly avenged him).34 And yet the greatest foreboding of impending wrath is the C text\u2019s reported portent in 979: a shiny, multi-hued, bloody cloud appearing on multiple nights throughout the year of \u00c6thelred\u2019s coronation. It may be tempting to read the annalist\u2019s succeeding account of the trou- bled times throughout \u00c6thelred\u2019s reign as a continuation of this salvation his- tory, furthering the explication of divine wrath. The very manuscript context of the C text invites a theological approach to the unfolding of time. Here the Chronicle is preceded first by the Old English Orosius and then by two poems, the Menologium and Maxims II. Both poems were written in the same hand as the first sequence of the C text (Scribe 1), and they stand, according to its editor, O\u2019Keeffe, as prefatory material to the Chronicle.35 The Menologium and the Chronicle both begin their accounts of time with Christ\u2019s Incarnation, the cen- tral moment of divine participation in Christian history. Maxims II identifies Christ\u2019s glory with the powers of wyrd (\u201cfate,\u201d or \u201ctemporal becoming\u201d). Even though the Orosius, the first text in this manuscript, was copied earlier in the eleventh century than the three texts that follow it, its matter is related.36 The theme of the Orosius is God\u2019s avenging governance over the rise and fall of na- tions. God has been \u201clongsumlice wrecende\u201d (long taking vengeance) upon the human race \u201cmid monigfealdum brocum \u204a gewinnum\u201d (with many afflictions and conflicts).37 The understanding urged in the Orosius is that all political power and authority, even that of heathen invaders, exist \u201cne for nanre wyrde 33 Keynes, The Diplomas, 232. 34 ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 47 (s.a. 979); (E), ed. Irvine, 60 (s.a. 979). 35 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, xv, xx. 36 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, xxiii. 37 Old English Orosius, ed. Bately, 36 (II.i).","Chapter 6 \u00c6thelred\u2019s Death and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle\u2019s Tone 135 buton fram godes stihtunge\u201d (not because of any fate, but though God\u2019s dispen- sation).38 The rise and fall of kingdoms is the expression of the divine will: \u201cNu we witan \u00feaet ealle onwealdas from him sindon, we witon eac \u00fe\u00e6t ealle ricu sint from him, for\u00feon ealle onwealdas of rice sindon\u201d (Now we know that all political powers come from him, and we also know that all kingdoms come from him, because all political powers come from kingdoms).39 The cultural context also invites this theological view of the unfolding of time in terms of salvation history. During the last ten years of \u00c6thelred\u2019s reign, legisla- tion written under the growing influence of Archbishop Wulfstan set the kingdom on a penitential course, directing it, in the face of Viking invasions, to make amends for failed piety and neglect of the divine service.40 Wulfstan\u2019s Sermo Lupi, in all its iterations, explores the nation\u2019s widespread sinfulness under the cloud of impending doom. Similarly, \u00c6lfric\u2019s Sermon on the Prayer of Moses (De Oratione Moysi), in expressing nostalgia for better days (much like Alfred\u2019s Preface to the Pastoral Care), blames abuses against the church for the disasters of the times. \u00c6lfric draws upon the voice of God to blame the English for their woes: Hu w\u00e6s hit \u00f0a si\u00f0\u00f0an \u00f0a \u00fea man towearp munuc-lif and godes biggengas to bysmore h\u00e6fde buton us com to cwealm and hunger and si\u00f0\u00f0an h\u00e6\u00f0en here us h\u00e6fde to bysmre. Be \u00feysum cw\u00e6\u00f0 se \u00e6lmihtiga god to moyse on \u00fe\u0101 w\u00e6stene . . . Gif ge \u00feonne me forseo\u00f0 and mine gesetnyssa awurpa\u00f0 ic eac swy\u00f0e hr\u00e6dlice on eow hit gewrece.41 (How then was it otherwise, after the monastic life has been cast down and God\u2019s worship treated with disgrace, but that we have suffered pestilence and famine, and afterwards been put to disgrace by a heathen army. About such things God almighty spoke to Moses in the wilderness . . . If you despise me and cast aside my commandments, I too will fiercely avenge it upon you.) Although in his later writings \u00c6lfric begins to encourage resistance to the Vi- king invaders, he still uses divine wrath to explain English misfortunes.42 In salvation history, justice functions on the principle of debit and credit; misfor- tune punishes sin and corrects waywardness. Or, as Nietzsche succinctly sum- marizes such logic in On the Genealogy of Morality, \u201cEverything can be paid off, everything must be paid off.\u201d43 38 Old English Orosius, ed. Bately, 37 (II.i). 39 Old English Orosius, ed. Bately, 36 (II.i). 40 Lemke, \u201cFear-Mongering?,\u201d 749. 41 \u00c6lfric\u2019s Lives of the Saints, ed. Skeat, I, 294: XIII, \u201cThe Prayer of Moses\u201d (lines 152\u201356, 163\u201364). 42 Godden, \u201cApocalypse and Invasion,\u201d 142. 43 Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morality, ed. Ansell-Pearson, trans. Diethe, 48.","136 Michael Treschow Context aside, however, this logic finds no expression in the \u00c6thelredian annals themselves. The only payment at work here is the infamous and ever- increasing Danegeld, expended in vain to purchase safety for the Angelcynn, only to be exacted again, at an even steeper rate, once Cnut has conquered and become king. The annalist does not resort to divine wrath to account for En- glish misfortunes; the noun wracu (vengeance) and the verb wrecan (to avenge) do not occur in his narrative. Although he levels blame at failed and foolish En- glish leadership, he is not a homilist; he does not call for repentance or provoke an abject awareness of sin. Although he makes claims a few times about God\u2019s intervention, his history is not theological. Nor is it philosophical, for these an- nals do not describe a dialectic of suffering. While Wulfstan and \u00c6lfric sought to convict the people of their sinfulness and their deserved punishment, the narrative of this annalist makes no connection between national suffering and moral impurity. The annalist\u2019s few references to divine power have to do with deliverance, not with judgment. These moments of deliverance might at first even look en- couraging, but the grim irony of succeeding events undermines any hope of a sustained deliverance. In the entry for 994, \u00d3l\u00e1fr Tryggvason and Sveinn Fork- beard attack London with a large naval fleet and begin setting the city on fire. To their surprise, they are heavily rebuffed by the Londoners: \u201cac hi \u00fe\u00e6r geferdon ge maran hearm \u204a yfel \u00feonne hi \u00e6fre wendon \u00fe\u00e6t him \u00e6nig buruhwaru gedon sceolde\u201d (but they suffered greater injury and harm than they ever thought that any citizenry could do to them).44 The attack happens on the Nativity of the Vir- gin Mary, and she is credited with the citizens\u2019 successful defense of their city: \u201cAc seo halige Godes modor on \u00feam d\u00e6ge hire mildeheortnesse \u00fe\u00e6re buruhware gecydde \u204a hi ahredde wi\u00f0 heora feondum\u201d (But the holy mother of God revealed her mercy on that day to the citizenry and delivered them from their enemies). The Viking army withdraws to the surrounding countryside, but no further dis- plays of heavenly mercy impede their violence. On the contrary, \u201chi \u00feanone fer- don \u204a worhton \u00fe\u00e6t m\u00e6ste yfel \u00f0e \u00e6fre \u00e6ni here gedon meahte on b\u00e6rnette \u204a heregunge \u204a on manslyhtum \u00e6g\u00f0er be \u00f0am s\u00e6riman on Eastseaxum \u204a on Cen- tlande \u204a on Su\u00f0seaxum \u204a on Hamtunscire. \u204a \u00e6t nyxtan naman heom hors \u204a ridon swa wide swa hi woldon \u204a unasecgendlice yfel wircende w\u00e6ron\u201d (they departed and wrought the greatest harm that every any army could perform, with burning, plundering, and slaughtering along the coast, first in Essex, then in Kent, Sussex, and Hampshire. And then they took horses and rode as far as they wanted and were inflicting unspeakable harm). 44 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, 87 (s.a. 994).","Chapter 6 \u00c6thelred\u2019s Death and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle\u2019s Tone 137 The annalist makes no further mention of divine intervention during \u00c6the- lred\u2019s reign. However, late in the long entry for 1016, amidst the events that follow closely upon \u00c6thelred\u2019s death, he again declares that God gives the Londoners a local and momentary deliverance. The newly crowned King Edmund, after raising Cnut\u2019s siege on London, has returned to Wessex to gather more forces, whereupon Cnut\u2019s army returns to London to besiege it anew: \u201cac se \u00e6lmihtiga God hi ah- redde\u201d (but almighty God delivered it).45 What shape that deliverance took, the an- nalist does not say. He instead reports that the army withdrew into Mercia and there \u201cslogon \u204a b\u00e6rndon swa hw\u00e6t swa hi oferforan, swa hira gewuna is, \u204a him metes tilodon, \u204a hi drifon \u00e6g\u00feer ge scipu ge hyra drafa into Medw\u00e6ge\u201d (they slew and burned whatever they came upon, as is their custom, and they provided them- selves with food and drove their ships and herds into the Medway). The irony here is not only that God\u2019s deliverance of London deflects destruction upon others, as in 994, but also that Londoners do not, in the end, escape the Vikings\u2019 oppression. Before the year ends, the soon-to-die King Edmund has withdrawn to Wessex and the Londoners must come to terms with Cnut\u2019s army, purchase peace, and allow the Danes to bring their ships into the city for winter quarters. The annalist makes no other reference to God, except in a note of praise for London\u2019s stalwart endur- ance throughout 1009 and in the hagiographic treatment of Archbishop \u00c6lfheah\u2019s martyrdom in the entries for 1011 and 1012. Pain and Suffering Perhaps the annalist gestures these few times toward the divine good will as momentary signs that, amidst all these depredations, God is not heedless, as in the simple words of the children\u2019s hymn: \u201cGod sees the little sparrow fall.\u201d Other than that, his annals have no theology, much less a case for salvation history. As Cecily Clark puts it, there is no sophisticated argument underlying them; they are the pained recollections of the \u201cordinary observer.\u201d46 This ob- server does not describe the afflictions and tribulations during \u00c6thelred\u2019s reign in detail. He does not attempt to represent them. However, he attests to them over and over again and appeals to the reality of the trauma they bring with them. His grief at English suffering becomes more palpable as his narrative gets closer to the time when he was writing. And yet already in the entry for 991, when he comes to the Battle of Maldon, he begins to warm to his theme. The 45 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, 102 (s.a. 1016). 46 Clark, \u201cNarrative Mode of The Chronicle,\u201d 15.","138 Michael Treschow defeat at Maldon, preceded by a raid in Ipswich and a slaughter in Watchet, prompts the decision to buy off the Danes with tribute \u201cfor \u00f0am miclan brogan \u00fee hi worhton be \u00f0am s\u00e6riman\u201d (because of the great terror that the Danes wrought along the coast).47 This \u201cgreat terror\u201d conveys an embodied response to sustained violence. What the Danes \u201cwrought\u201d in order to produce such terror, he names while leaving the contours to the imagination of his readers or to the memory of those who experienced it: the sudden attacks, the burning, the slay- ing, the capturing, and the looting. The succeeding years of \u00c6thelred\u2019s reign un- fold under the cloud of this great terror, even the immediately succeeding years. In 992 there is a \u201cmicel w\u00e6l\u201d (great slaughter); in 993 the invading army \u201cmicel yfel worhton\u201d (wrought great harm); and in 994, as noted above, after their first departure from London, the invaders \u201cworhton \u00fe\u00e6t m\u00e6ste yfel . . . on b\u00e6rnette \u204a heregunge \u204a on manslyhtum\u201d (wrought the greatest harm . . . with burning, plundering, and slaying), and \u201cunasecgendlice yfel wircende w\u00e6ron\u201d (were in- flicting unspeakable harm). This annal for 994 marks a shift in style. Here the annalist becomes more rhe- torically effusive and begins to use repetition of phrasing, the rhetorical strategy noted by both Clark and Keynes.48 Burning, plundering, and slaying are the terms of a formulaic phrase that the annalist repeats more than anything else \u2013 his \u201cmost constant refrain,\u201d as Clark puts it.49 Only two other times, however, does he actually use this triplicate form to denote violence suffered at the hands of the Vik- ings. In 1006 a great fleet comes to Sandwich, \u201c\u204a dydon eal swa hi \u00e6r gewuna w\u00e6ron, heregodon \u204a b\u00e6rndon \u204a slogon swa swa hi ferdon\u201d (and did what was ever their custom, they plundered, burned, and slew wherever they went). In the fateful year of 1016 Cnut brings his army across the Thames in midwinter, \u201c\u204a here- godon \u204a b\u00e6rndon \u204a slogon eal \u00fe\u00e6t hi to common\u201d (and plundered, burned, and slew all that they came upon). More frequently the phrasing is in duplicate, with either burning and plundering, or burning and slaughtering. In 997 after the in- vading army raids in Cornwall and Devonshire, it goes into Somerset, \u201c\u204a \u00fe\u00e6r micel yfel worhton on b\u00e6rnette \u204a on mannslihtum\u201d (and there did great harm in burning and slaying).50 The same year they turn south down the River Tamar \u201c\u204a \u00e6lc \u00feing b\u00e6rndon \u204a slogon \u00fee hi gemitton\u201d (and they burned and slew everything they met). In 1001, after the invading army was repulsed at Exeter, \u201c\u00dea wendon hi geond \u00fe\u00e6t land \u204a\u204a dydan eal swa hi bewuna w\u00e6ron, slogon \u204a b\u00e6rndon\u201d (they went throughout the land and did just as they were accustomed to do: they slew 47 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, 86 (s.a. 991). 48 Clark, \u201cNarrative Mode of The Chronicle,\u201d 14\u201315; Keynes, The Diplomas, 231. 49 Clark, \u201cNarrative Mode of The Chronicle,\u201d 15. 50 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, 88 (s.a. 997).","Chapter 6 \u00c6thelred\u2019s Death and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle\u2019s Tone 139 and burned).51 In 1003 Sveinn leads his army to Wilton, \u201c\u204a hi \u00fea buruh geherego- don \u204a forb\u00e6rndon\u201d (and they plundered the town and burned it down). In 1004 Sveinn brings his fleet to Norwich, \u201c\u204a \u00fea buruh eall geheregode \u204a forb\u00e6rnde\u201d (and completely plundered the town and burned it down).52 Two weeks later they come to Thetford, \u201c\u204a \u00fea buruh heregodon \u204a forb\u00e6rndon\u201d (and they plundered the town and burned it down). In 1006 the annalist notes again, calling to mind the \u201cmicel broga\u201d in 991, the great (thus constant) fear in the face of this violence: \u00d0a wear\u00f0 hit swa micel ege fram \u00feam here \u00fe\u00e6t man ne mihte ge\u00feencan \u204a ne asmeagan hu man hi of earde adrifan sceolde o\u00fe\u00fee \u00f0isne eard wi\u00f0 hi gehealdan, for\u00f0an \u00fee hi h\u00e6f- don \u00e6lce scire on Wesseaxum sti\u00f0e gemearcod mid bryne \u204a mid heregunge.53 [Such a great fear arose at that invading army that no one could conceive or comprehend how they should be driven from the land or this land defended against them, because every shire in Wessex they had harshly branded with burning and plundering.] In 1009 the invading army went through Hampshire and Berkshire, \u201c\u204a heregodon \u204a b\u00e6rndon swa hiora gewuna is\u201d (and plundered and burned, as is their custom). In 1010, after a decisive victory in Cambridgeshire, with several English nobles slain, the invading army \u201c.iii. mon\u00feas hergodon \u204a b\u00e6rndon, ge fyr\u00f0on on \u00fea wildan fennas hi ferdon, \u204a men \u204a yrfe hi slogon \u204a b\u00e6rndon geond \u00fea fennas\u201d (plundered and burned for three months, then also journeyed into the wild fens, and through- out the fens they slew and burned men and cattle). And in 1016, as noted above, shortly after \u00c6thelred\u2019s death, Cnut and his army, repelled from London, departed for Mercia \u201c\u204a slogon \u204a b\u00e6rndon swa hw\u00e6t swa hi oferforan, swa hira gewuna is\u201d (and they slew and burned whatever they came upon, as is their custom).54 Sometimes this phrasing refers not to Danish but to English violence, as in \u00c6thelred\u2019s attempt at a victorious return to the throne in 1014, with his retaliatory attack on Lindsey: \u201c\u204a man \u00fea hergode \u204a b\u00e6rnde \u204a sloh eal \u00fe\u00e6t mancynn \u00fe\u00e6t man r\u00e6can mihte\u201d (and they plundered and burned and slew all the people that they could reach).55 The strategy proves ineffective, in the annalist\u2019s account, since Cnut simply withdraws and perpetrates his own atrocities by maiming his hostages. The episode recalls the ineffective and costly misuse of a newly raised English \u201cscypfyrd\u201d (fleet) in 999, and the futile expedition in 1000, where \u00c6the- lred plundered Cumberland \u201cswi\u00f0e neah eall\u201d (nearly entirely) and also plundered the Isle of Man, but without engaging the invading army and to no tactical 51 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, 89 (s.a. 1001). 52 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, 90 (s.a. 1004). 53 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, 91 (s.a. 1006). 54 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, 94 (s.a. 1016). 55 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, 99 (s.a. 1014).","140 Michael Treschow advantage; his army retreated to Normandy but returned the next year to attack Exeter and venture into Devon and Somerset, \u201c\u204a w\u00e6s \u00e6fre heora \u00e6ftra si\u00fe wyrsa \u00feonne se \u00e6ra\u201d (with their every incursion worse than the one before).56 \u00c6thelred\u2019s slaughter of the people of Lindsey also recalls the St. Brice\u2019s Day Massacre in 1002, which likewise serves to provoke further destruction, plundering, and burn- ing in 1003.57 The English, by the annalist\u2019s account, not only experience horrific violence, but their attempts to counteract it with like violence lead only to further trauma. The annalist\u2019s expressions of despair regularly link sustained Danish vio- lence with English strategic failure. In the annal for 999, he laments the ineffec- tiveness of the Kentish \u201cfyrd\u201d (militia) in its battle against Danish invaders in Rochester: \u201cac wala \u00fe\u00e6t hi to ra\u00f0e bugon \u204a flugon\u201d (but, alas, that they too read- ily retreated and fled).58 The victorious Danes go on \u201c\u204a forneah ealle West Kentin- gas fordydon \u204a forheregodon\u201d (and destroy and ravage nearly all West Kent). More famously, in the entry for 1011, he complains, \u201cEalle \u00feas unges\u00e6l\u00f0a us ge- lumpon \u00feuruh unr\u00e6das\u201d (all these misfortunes came upon us because of bad policy). He then summarizes what those misfortunes entailed: \u201chi ferdon \u00e6gh- weder flocm\u00e6lum \u204a heregodon ure earme folc, \u204a hi rypton \u204a slogon\u201d (they ven- tured everywhere in bands and plundered our poor people and captured them and slew them). This use of the verb r\u012bpan is unique in the \u00c6thelredian annals, whereas the preceding verb hergian (to plunder) occurs eighteen times and its intensified form, forhergian, twice. Although r\u012bpan can much the same as hergian (to plunder), here the two verbs seem not to be used in synonymous parallelism. Here r\u012bpan is more closely paired with sl\u0113an and suggests something distinct from hergian, some further act of violence. The poor people are not only plun- dered of their goods but are themselves also taken as spoil \u2013 enslaved. The complaint in the annal for 1011 does not mention burning or conflagra- tion, even though the annalist otherwise emphasizes this Viking practice. This omission demands some attention. Thought the annalist\u2019s account the verb b\u00e6rnan occurs twelve times, its intensified form forb\u00e6rnan a further nine times, the noun b\u00e6rnet twice, and the noun bryne once. In that \u201cmost constant refrain\u201d of burning, plundering, and\/or slaying, the Viking action of burning is the most constant of all, paired five times with slaying (sl\u0113an) and six times with plundering (hergian \/ forhergian). Conflagrations function in these annals to underline the destructiveness of the invading army. In the annal for 1010, 56 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, 88 (s.a. 1000). 57 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, 90 (s.a. 1001). 58 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, 88 (s.a. 1002, 1003).","Chapter 6 \u00c6thelred\u2019s Death and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle\u2019s Tone 141 after the Danes plunder and burn the countryside for three months and journey into the fens to burn and slay some more, the verb forb\u00e6rnan occurs a further three times to describe the many conflagrations they leave behind. In the an- nals for 1006, after their long summer campaign of, plundering, burning, and slaying \u201cswa hi \u00e6r gewuna w\u00e6ron\u201d (as they were accustomed before), they journey to their winter-quarters, \u201c\u204a hi a dydon heora ealdan gewunan, atendon hiora herebeacen swa hi ferdon. Wendon \u00fea to Wealingaforda \u204a \u00fe\u00e6t eall for- sw\u00e6ldon\u201d (and they always followed their old custom and kindled their war beacons wherever they went; they came to Wallingford and burned it to the ground). Their gewuna (custom) of kindling hereb\u0113acen (war beacons) is a reit- eration of their gewuna of plundering, burning, and slaying. Though the word is left out in the annal for 1011, conflagration is implicit by virtue of its other- wise regular occurrence. When the annalist, at \u00c6thelred\u2019s death in 1016, sums up that he \u201cgeheold his rice mid myclum geswince \u204a earfo\u00f0nessum\u201d (held his kingdom amidst great affliction and tribulations), his words echo with the \u201cmost constant refrain\u201d of plundering, burning, and slaying. The preposition \u201cmid\u201d does not, then, set up an adverbial phrase of manner or quality (\u201cwith\u201d), as though it spoke to \u00c6the- lred\u2019s experience. It sets up an adverbial phrase of circumstance (\u201camidst\u201d) that speaks to the experience of his kingdom. The annalist\u2019s phrasing continues his witness to traumatic times. The annalist\u2019s critique of English leadership during \u00c6thelred\u2019s reign may, pace Keynes, be flawed, partial, or personal, and may be out of line with other historical evidence, but his witness to Danish (and English) atrocity demands con- sideration all the same. Some critics, such as Ann Williams, discredit the annalist\u2019s witness by treating his tone as unrepresentative (or perhaps idiosyncratic): When the account in the \u2018A\u2019 text is compared with that of the other recensions, what is striking is the difference in tone. . . . There is no loss of morale in the \u2018A\u2019 text\u2019s account, and its existence warns against an uncritical acceptance of the lamentations found in the other recensions of the Chronicle.59 Williams\u2019s warning is a move to dismiss this witness\u2019s voice. She does not actu- ally engage these lamentations with any critical response to \u201cuncritical accep- tance.\u201d Her argument again prompts Elaine Treharne\u2019s question as to \u201cwhy scholars do so much to erase those who were already half-erased \u2013 the silent, voiceless human hubbub,\u201d in this case, those who experienced plundering, burning, and slaying.60 59 Williams, \u00c6thelred the Unready, 51. 60 Treharne, Living Through Conquest, 55.","142 Michael Treschow The annalist\u2019s repetition of his \u201cmost constant refrain\u201d is formulaic, rhetori- cal, and short on detail. Even so, rhetoric need not be disingenuous. Leaving things to the imagination not only summons an affective response; it can also signal traumatic memory. In her early volume on trauma theory, Unclaimed Ex- perience: Trauma, Narrative, and History, Cathy Caruth calls for a \u201cnew mode of reading and of listening . . . [to] the language of trauma, and the silence of its mute repetition of suffering.\u201d61 Repetition is a central concept in trauma theory. It may refer to an ongoing pattern of lived experience, \u201cthe shape of individual lives,\u201d62 but more technically refers to memory that reiterates traumatic events without fully accessing them. In a recent volume, Literature in the Ashes of His- tory, Caruth uses the Freudian concept of Nachtr\u00e4glichkeit (which she translates as \u201cdeferred action\u201d) to explain how traumatic memory \u201carchives its own his- tory and in so doing, bears witness to the newness, and alterity, to the shock of a history it cannot assimilate but only repeat.\u201d63 Such memory, she says, origi- nates \u201cas its own deferral and also as its later repetition, a fundamental deferral and repetition at the beginning.\u201d64 The significance of this deferral for reading the \u00c6thelredian annalist is that it accounts for his \u201cmute repetition of suffer- ing.\u201d He names atrocity again and again but does not reveal its horrors and does not give voice to the cries that it draws forth. The atrocities remain remote. Central to Caruth\u2019s trauma theory is the tenet that trauma is inaccessible and resists representation. It is worth noting, therefore, that the annalist, when re- porting Archbishop \u00c6lfheah\u2019s martyrdom in 1012, closely describes the vio- lence at his death. Here he is writing in a hagiographic mode, where the details of a violent death are called for to substantiate the meritorious qualities of the saint. But in recounting the sufferings of the people, he does not depict vio- lence. Although violence haunts the reiterations of plundering, burning, and slaying, the annalist does not attempt to give the experience of violence itself representation. Unlike the sufferings of the saint, the sufferings of the people are not meritorious, nor in any way efficacious. They are only grievous. The compulsion to repeatedly remember them meets the compulsion to erase them, as Caruth has shown.65 A potent image of such repetition and erasure occurs in Book 6 of Virgil\u2019s Aeneid, where Aeneas visits the Sybil at Cumae who will lead him into the un- derworld to meet his father\u2019s shade. Before entering the temple to Apollo at 61 Caruth, Unclaimed Experience, 9. 62 Caruth, Unclaimed Experience, 63. 63 Caruth, Literature in the Ashes of History, 80. 64 Caruth, Literature in the Ashes of History, 80 (her emphasis). 65 Caruth, Literature in the Ashes of History, 78\u201379. See note 6.","Chapter 6 \u00c6thelred\u2019s Death and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle\u2019s Tone 143 Cumae, Aeneas marvels at Daedalus\u2019s engravings on its walls. The poet adds, in an apostrophe, that Daedalus tried, but failed, to include a depiction of his son\u2019s tragic fall from the sky: Tu quoque Partem opere in tanto, sineret dolor, Icare, haberes. Bis conatus erat casus effingere in auro; Bis patriae cecidere manus.66 [You too, Icarus, would have had a place in so great a work of art, had grief but allowed it. Twice he tried to portray in gold how you plummeted, twice your father\u2019s hands drooped.] Daedalus\u2019s enervating grief reflects the lassitude of melancholy, but as such also describes the \u201cdeferred action\u201d of traumatic memory. Caruth uses the im- agery of burning to explain this process (aptly enough in the context of the an- nalist\u2019s emphasis). Appealing to Derrida\u2019s Archive Fever, she describes the compulsion both to preserve traumatic memory and to efface it: Between the shock of the memory that effaces, and the shock of the discovery of this memory, is the event of an erasure, which is also archive fever, because it is made up of memory and is about memory, it is about the burning desire for memory and the history of its burning up.67 The annalist\u2019s account exemplifies \u201cliterature in the ashes of history.\u201d It docu- ments burning and destruction across the English landscape, with town after town left in ashes. He memorializes the burning, however, as something abstract and generic, leaving unsaid (i.e., erasing) the contours of these traumatic moments. After Cnut\u2019s conquest and coronation, the annalist makes no more mention of plundering, burning, and slaying. He does not exclaim \u201cWala\u201d (as for the year 999), or express a tender regard for \u201cure earme folc\u201d (as for the year 1011), not even when, two years into Cnut\u2019s reign, his people are compelled to pay the most extortionate Danegeld of all. His entries become brief and restrained. His resigna- tion to an oppressive regime further mutes his account of suffering but reverber- ates still with the lamentation and grief that he expressed for the period of invasion. This is what Treharne calls \u201cthe silence of conquest.\u201d68 The years of trauma have yielded to heavy oppression. Although the \u201cmute repetitions\u201d have now become fully mute, they remain palpable. 66 Aeneid, VI, lines 30\u201333, in Bucolics, Aeneid, and Georgics of Vergil, ed. Greenough. 67 Caruth, Literature in the Ashes of History, 79. 68 Treharne, Living Through Conquest, 48.","144 Michael Treschow Conclusion: Shaping Memory The annalist\u2019s repetitions and lamentations express love, the very substance of love, for \u201cwithout love, there is no grief . . . without grief, there is no love,\u201d as Amy Hollywood writes at the beginning of \u201cAcute Melancholia.\u201d69 In that arti- cle, albeit in a later medieval context, Hollywood explores how the melancholic response to trauma produces the subject with its capacity for love. Personal trauma, however, does not exist isolated in the individual, as Caruth explains: \u201cthe theory of individual trauma contains within it the core of the trauma of a larger history.\u201d70 Just so, according to Treharne, does the \u00c6thelredian annal- ist\u2019s \u201chistory of a trauma\u201d recount \u201cthe formative events of the nation.\u201d71 He presents this anguished love not simply as his own, but as a reaction that be- longs to the \u201cAngelcynn\u201d (English people), shaping its memory and awareness. The annalist\u2019s literary qualities, his affective tone and rhetoric, do not di- minish or interfere with his account of history. On the contrary, they open our attention to historically embedded wounds. His annals offer a locus for what another trauma theorist, Dominick LaCapra, has proposed as a way forward in the study of historiography: \u201cthe mutual interrogation of history and litera- ture.\u201d72 He says that this mutual interrogation foregrounds \u201cthe relation be- tween historical and transhistorical force,\u201d things particular to a particular time and things that span times and cultures.73 LaCapra proposes that \u201cthe transhis- torical may be exemplified at present by the Lacanian \u2018real\u2019 \u2013 the traumatic void or break that resists or even annihilates symbolization yet may provoke it as well.\u201d74 On the death of King \u00c6thelred, the annalist\u2019s resigned recollections glimpse into that traumatic void and affirm the horrors and longings witnessed in his times, in kinship with other times. \u201cThe notion of historical trauma,\u201d Car- uth says, may help us \u201cunderstand the full complexity of the problem of sur- vival at the heart of the human experience.\u201d75 The \u00c6thelredian annalist tugs on some of the strings in that complex problem. The undertones of grief in his ac- count of this particular, though all too human, invasion and conquest, invites readers at the very least to heed and reflect upon the sorrows that attend sur- vival in such a world. 69 Hollywood, \u201cAcute Melancholia,\u201d 381. 70 Caruth, Unclaimed Experience, 71. 71 Treharne, Living Through Conquest, 55; cf. Caruth, Unclaimed Experience, 60. 72 LaCapra, History, Literature, Critical Theory, 12. 73 LaCapra, History, Literature, Critical Theory, 13. 74 LaCapra, History, Literature, Critical Theory, 13. 75 Caruth, Unclaimed Experience, 58.","David McDermott Chapter 7 King Edmund II Ironside and the Siege of London, 1016 In 1016, the same year that witnessed at least five battles between Edmund Iron- side and Cnut of Denmark for the throne of England, the city of London was sub- jected to three sieges by the Danish army. The second of these sieges, relieved by Edmund, occupies a pivotal position in his at times desperate resistance to Cnut\u2019s relentless attacks.1 How do Cnut and Edmund compare? In Timothy Bol- ton\u2019s view, their \u201ccompetition for the crown seems to have been that of a cunning and intelligent man versus a more straightfoward warrior.\u201d2 Before we consider this comparison, let us study Cnut\u2019s approach to London. Collectively, his three sieges conform to a pattern of Viking military strategy that can be traced back to the first Viking Age in the ninth century. A short sketch of this history is in order before we return to Edmund\u2019s duel with Cnut for London in 1016. Viking Sieges of London before Cnut The Winchester manuscript of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that an im- mense Viking raiding-army entered the mouth of the River Thames in 851 and \u201cbrecon\u201d (stormed) London, putting to flight the king of Mercia and his army. After dispersing these forces, the Vikings turned south into Surrey, where they suffered a signal defeat in battle against King \u00c6thelwulf of Wessex.3 The ab- sence of any reference to London being taken in this year in the Chronicle, infu- riatingly succinct as this is, may indicate that the city withstood the onslaught. Thereafter London appears to have escaped the attention of the Vikings until 871, when the city was occupied by a raiding-army that quartered in the city over the winter before moving its operations to Northumbria. Unfortunately, 1 The second siege of London, and the relief of the city, took place after the battles of Pensel- wood and Sherston but before the battles of Brentford and Assandun. John of Worcester alleges an armed encounter between Edmund Ironside and the Danes at Otford which is unlikely to have taken place. 2 Bolton, Cnut the Great, 91. 3 ASC (A), ed. Bately, 44 (s.a. 851). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1515\/9781501513336-008","146 David McDermott the Chronicle provides no information regarding how the occupying force came to take possession.4 London may have come under Viking control when a raid- ing-army settled in Mercia in 877, but within a decade King Alfred retook London and made Ealdorman \u00c6thelred of Mercia responsible for the safety of the city.5 These early attacks on London were sporadic and of questionable effect. From the time London was returned to English control in the late ninth century, and throughout most of the tenth century, London appears to have escaped the attention of the Vikings. However, the penultimate decade of the reign of \u00c6the- lred II (978\u20131016) signalled the beginning of a series of renewed Viking assaults against London. These began in 994 with the arrival of \u00d3l\u00e1fr Tryggvason (later king of Norway) and King Sveinn Forkbeard of Denmark, who led a combined raiding-army comprising ninety-four ships. The Chronicle relates that the forces of \u201cAnlaf\u201d (\u00d3l\u00e1fr) and \u201cSwegen\u201d (Sveinn) \u201cf\u00e6stlice\u201d (determinedly) set about attacking London and attempted to raze the city by fire.6 Despite their efforts to breach London\u2019s defenses, according to the Chronicler, the Vikings were met with a level of resistance from the Londoners that was unexpected in its ferocity and the assailants sustained the greater \u201chearm \u204a yfel\u201d (harm and injury).7 De- fied and frustrated by the city\u2019s defenders, according to the twelfth-century nar- rative of John of Worcester, the raiding-army withdrew from London on the same day and made good by pillaging the neighboring counties.8 When London was next attacked in 1009, the city\u2019s assailants demonstrated they were more determined than their predecessors to take the town. The account in the Chronicle is typically sparse in detail, but it does relate that the \u201cungemet- lice\u201d (immense) raiding-army before London \u201coft . . . gefuhton\u201d (often attacked) the town. Although the Chronicler does not disclose the duration of the Vikings\u2019 relatively sustained assault, he does record that it proved ineffective, reporting they \u201c\u00e6fre yfel geferdon\u201d (always fared badly). As before, the Vikings abandoned their siege and directed their aggression elsewhere, burning down Oxford.9 London was equally resolute and successful in resisting Sveinn Forkbeard in 1013. Sveinn moved on London only after receiving the submission of the north of England and that of Oxford and Winchester. Any expectations Sveinn may have had that London would follow the example of other major towns and capitulate were dashed when the inhabitants refused to submit. The level of the 4 ASC (AE), trans. Swanton, 72\u201373 (s.a. 871 [for 870]). 5 ASC (AE), trans. Swanton, 74\u201375 (s.a. 877 [for 876]); 80\u201381 (s.a. 886 [for 886]). 6 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 61\u201362 (s.a. 994); trans. Swanton, 127 (s.a. 994). 7 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 61 (s.a. 994); trans. Swanton, 129 (s.a. 994). 8 Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 442\u201343. 9 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 67 (s.a. 1009); trans. Swanton, 139 (s.a. 1009).","Chapter 7 King Edmund II Ironside and the Siege of London, 1016 147 Londoners\u2019 determination to resist Sveinn is indicated in the Chronicler\u2019s de- scription that London held out against him \u201cfullan wige\u201d (with full battle)10 and, according to John of Worcester, \u201cillum abegit\u201d (drove him off).11 Denied his goal, Sveinn traveled to Bath, where he received the submission of the west of England, before returning north, where the whole nation accepted him as \u201cfulne cyning\u201d (full king). The impression created by the Chronicle is that Lon- don was alone in its opposition to Sveinn, but finally London, fearing his retri- bution, also submitted.12 The Vikings\u2019 repeated attempts to occupy London during \u00c6thelred\u2019s reign require some explanation. One of the consequences of the expansion of the polit- ical power of the kingdom of Wessex from the early tenth century, which culmi- nated in the unification of England under King \u00c6thelstan, was a shift in what Ryan Lavelle has described as the \u201cstrategic key to the kingdom\u201d from Wessex to the area around London.13 Although the city may not have been larger than any of the other important towns in England, by the beginning of the eleventh cen- tury London had become, to quote C. N. L. Brooke, the country\u2019s \u201cchief port . . . the centre of communications with the Continent\u201d and \u201cthe centre of the money- markets of England and north-western Europe.\u201d14 This combination of political, economic and military factors made London a \u201cnodal point\u201d in \u00c6thelred\u2019s king- dom and an ideal southern center from which to govern the entire country.15 King Edmund II Ironside and Cnut\u2019s First Siege of London By the time Cnut arrived for his first siege of London, its ruler was King Edmund Ironside, \u00c6thelred\u2019s eldest son and successor, to whom much of the organiza- tion of the resistance to Cnut must be credited. Edmund was in London when \u00c6thelred died there on April 23, 1016.16 Edmund was aware of the king\u2019s declin- ing health and it is plausible that he was in the city to secure his succession, as 10 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 70 (s.a. 1013); trans. and ed. Swanton, 143 (s.a. 1013). 11 Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 472\u201373. 12 ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 58 (s.a. 1013); trans. Swanton, 144 (s.a. 1013); see also Lavelle, \u00c6the- lred II, 129, and Roach, \u00c6thelred the Unready, 291. 13 Lavelle, \u00c6thelred II, 120. 14 Brooke, London 800\u20131216, 23. 15 Lavelle, \u00c6thelred II, 127. 16 ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 148\u201349 (s.a. 1016).","148 David McDermott well as to defend the city in the sure expectation that Cnut would attack it.17 Cnut, however, according to the early-twelfth-century narrative of William of Malmesbury, waited with his ships in the west of the country until Easter was past before launching his forces against London in the second week of May.18 Edmund\u2019s accession did not have universal support. In a telling reference to the details of his accession, the Chronicle reports that he was elected to the throne by \u201cealle \u00fea witan \u00fee on Lundene w\u00e6ron\u201d (all the councillors who were in London) and the citizens of the city.19 Although he was not chosen by a full complement of the royal council (the \u201cwitan\u201d), his elevation to the throne, with the approval of the city\u2019s citizenry, may be read as further proof of London\u2019s in- creasing importance. Shortly after his accession, King Edmund left London sometime before Cnut, arriving with his fleet between May 7 and 9, could cut him off.20 The Chronicle does not explain Edmund\u2019s reason for leaving the city at a time when one might reasonably expect it to be besieged, but its description of Edmund\u2019s departure may be instructive. In deceptively simple language, it says that Edmund \u201cgerad\u201d (rode) to Wessex, which submitted to him.21 If this preterite is of a transitive verb ger\u012bdan (to obtain by riding, occupy), the entry in the Chronicle may convey the sense, as suggested by Ann Williams, that Edmund forcibly took possession of Wessex.22 A demonstration of force by him might have been necessary, if, as reported in the narrative of William of Malmesbury, parts of Wessex had capitulated to Cnut. While the English were making several unsuccessful attempts to send an army against Cnut at the end of 1015 and the beginning of 1016, the Danish king, according to William, took possession of towns in Wessex.23 Although this account is only in William, the divided loyalties of the English at the battle of Sherston, in June 1016, indicate that some southern Mercian and West Saxon magnates had reached an accommodation with Cnut that may have included a formal submission.24 The partiality of Edmund\u2019s election in London may also lend credibility to the unique account by John of Worcester that Cnut, en route from Poole Harbour 17 Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, I, 417. 18 Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Mynors, Thomson, and Winterbottom, I, 314\u201315. 19 ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 61 (s.a. 1016); (E), ed. Irvine, 73 (s.a. 1016); (DE), trans. Swanton, 148\u201349 (s.a. 1016). 20 ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 149 (s.a. 1016). 21 ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 61 (s.a. 1016). 22 Williams, \u00c6thelred the Unready, 142\u201343 and n. 63, 226. 23 Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Mynors, Thomson, and Winterbottom, I, 312\u201313. 24 ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 150\u201351 (s.a. 1016); Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 486\u201387; Bolton, Empire of Cnut, 38\u201339.","Chapter 7 King Edmund II Ironside and the Siege of London, 1016 149 to besiege London, stopped at Southampton, where the \u201cepiscopi, abbates, duces et quique nobiliores Anglie\u201d (bishops, abbots, ealdormen and all the no- bles of England) accepted him as king.25 Even if John of Worcester sometimes ex- aggerates in his record of the degree of English defection to Cnut, it is possible on this basis that Edmund was twice elected king in 1016. Ann Williams has re- marked upon the similarity between the repudiation of King \u00c6thelred and his descendants, on the one hand, which John of Worcester records as part of the promises made to Cnut at Southampton,26 and on the other, the declaration of exile on every Danish king which the Chronicle records as part of the negotiations for \u00c6thelred\u2019s return from Normandy.27 If Cnut had learned of the edict of out- lawry against him, so Williams suggests, he may have demanded that the English kings be similarly rejected. A second election at Southampton would also explain the Chronicle\u2019s intimation that Edmund exerted force to subdue Wessex.28 Other factors may also explain Edmund\u2019s absence from London when it was first besieged. Although Thietmar of Merseburg, writing in the early eleventh cen- tury, is alone and probably incorrect in placing Edmund in London when Cnut ar- rived, there may be some validity in his explanation of Edmund\u2019s departure from this city. Thietmar alleges that Queen Emma, whom he places in London, agreed to have Edmund and his brother \u00c6thelstan killed in exchange for Cnut\u2019s guarantee of her safety.29 The lack of corroboration for this claim, together with numerous factual errors, such as reporting \u00c6thelstan to be alive one year after his death, bring Thietmar\u2019s account into question. Nonetheless, Edmund\u2019s death would have been politically advantageous for Emma. If, as reasonably suggested by Pauline Stafford, Emma sought to promote the interests of her sons by \u00c6thelred over those of his first marriage, Edmund\u2019s demise would have facilitated her ambitions.30 Thietmar\u2019s narrative is sometimes confused and confusing, as indicated by him re- porting that the \u00e6theling \u00c6thelstan, who predeceased Edmund, relieved the be- sieged city.31 However, he may be essentially accurate about a threat against Edmund from enemies inside the city of London, which Edmund may then have prudently chosen to leave to avoid being trapped by them within, as well as by enemies without. 25 Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 484\u201385. 26 Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 484\u201385; Williams, \u00c6thelred the Un- ready, 140. 27 ASC (E), trans. Swanton, 145 (s.a. 1014). 28 Williams, \u00c6thelred the Unready, 140. 29 Thietmar, Chronicon, 335. 30 Stafford, Queeen Emma and Queen Edith, 221\u201322. 31 Chronicon, ed. Holtzmann, 336.","150 David McDermott Cnut\u2019s Great Ditch in Southwark The Chronicle reports that Cnut, en route to London from the south coast, stopped temporarily at Greenwich before proceeding to London. Upon arriving at the city Cnut was confronted with the obstacle of London Bridge, which he avoided by having \u201cmicle dic\u201d (a great ditch) dug from east to west around the southern end, through which the Danes dragged their ships.32 Although neither the Chronicle, nor any of the other primary sources which record this event, ex- plains the reason for Cnut\u2019s tactic, one may reasonably infer that the bridge was manned by a contingent of London\u2019s defenders which he wished to avoid. Once the Danes had secured their ships, the Chronicle records that they block- aded the city by encircling it with a greater ditch, which William of Malmesbury was probably correct to describe as surrounding only those sides of the city not adjacent to the Thames.33 The Chronicle\u2019s closely contemporary account of a Danish-dug ditch sur- rounding three sides of London (on the north bank of the Thames), described by John of Worcester as \u201calta lataque\u201d (deep and wide)34 might be supported by archaeological evidence. Excavations conducted in the Cripplegate area of the City of London between 1946 and 1968 revealed, beyond the remains of the Roman city wall, a medieval trench that had been dug to a minimum depth of 1.5 m and may originally have had a width of 15 m.35 Between the ditch and the Roman city wall was a 15 m wide berm, which may have been produced from the upcast from the ditch to form an earthen embankment against the wall fac- ing.36 An examination of the pottery recovered from the ditch revealed that ma- terial had been deposited over several stages, the earliest being 950\u20131100. The implication of this finding is that the ditch had been cut no later than the early eleventh century.37 Subsequent excavations near the Roman wall in other areas of the City have produced possible further evidence for the existence of an early-eleventh- century ditch around London. Similar ditches have been identified at several other sites, including the Houndsditch to the east of Cripplegate, and one to the 32 ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 61 (s.a. 1016); (D), trans. Swanton, 149 (s.a. 1016). 33 ASC (D), trans. Swanton, 149. Marshy conditions on the South Bank seem in evidence in the Encomium, ed. Campbell, 22\u201323, which describes London as surrounded by a naturally oc- curring river which Cnut blocked with his ships to circumvallate the city. 34 Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 384\u201385. 35 Milne, Excavations at Medieval Cripplegate, 10. 36 Milne, Excavations at Medieval Cripplegate, 35. 37 Milne, Excavations at Medieval Cripplegate, 11.","Chapter 7 King Edmund II Ironside and the Siege of London, 1016 151 west of Cripplegate at Aldersgate, from which eleventh-century finds were re- covered.38 Gustav Milne, in his summary of the significance of these excava- tions, concluded there was a ditch surrounding early medieval London \u201cat least two centuries\u201d before the earliest extant documentary record of 1211. Milne also concluded, perhaps controversially, that the ditch was defensive.39 It is possi- ble that the construction of the ditch is Anglo-Saxon in origin. However, when the archaeological evidence for an early-eleventh-century ditch around London is combined with the closely contemporary record of the Danes surrounding London with a ditch in 1016, it may be considered likely that the ditches discov- ered at various locations outside the City wall are part of the longer ditch dug on the orders of Cnut. London\u2019s Ally: Ulfcytel of East Anglia With the city now circumvallated and blockaded, the Danes, according to the Chronicle, \u201coftr\u00e6dlice on \u00fea buruh fuhton\u201d (regularly attacked the town) but were repeatedly repulsed by the Londoners.40 In the early-twelfth-century ac- count of William of Malmesbury, who perhaps imitates the patriotic stance of the Chronicle, the engagements beside the wall of London are described as even-handed, with the Danes receiving as much injury as they inflicted.41 Cor- roboration that the Danes made attacks during their first siege is provided by a closely contemporary Scandinavian source, the collectively composed Li\u00f0sman- naflokkr (Soldiers\u2019 Song). This skaldic poem records two instances of fighting close to, or beside, London. The first instance, in stanza 5, refers to a battle waged on the bank of the Thames (\u201c\u00e1 Tempsar s\u00ed\u00f0u\u201d).42 Citing the command given by Cnut that the Danes \u201cb\u00ed\u00f0a\u201d (wait) after the battle, before launching an assault on London, Russell Poole argues persuasively that Li\u00f0smannaflokkr in- dicates the encounter took place somewhere close to the city.43 The second 38 Vince, Saxon London, 90; Butler, \u201c1600 Years of the City Defences,\u201d 235\u201344. 39 Excavations at Medieval Cripplegate, 35. 40 ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 61 (s.a. 1016); (D), trans. Swanton, 149 (s.a. 1016). 41 Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Mynors, Thomson, and Winterbottom, I, 314\u201315. Contrary to the majority of primary sources that report Cnut\u2019s assaults on London, the Encomium, ed. Campbell, 22\u201323, records that Cnut accepted the invitation of the citizens to take the city peacefully, but suspected the loyalty of the Londoners and so left soon after to winter on Sheppey. 42 Poole, Viking Poems, 87. My translations of this poem are based on his. 43 Poole, \u201cSkaldic Verse,\u201d 288.","152 David McDermott instance of fighting, in stanza 7 of this poem, is more compelling. After their aforementioned engagement beside the Thames, the poem says that \u201cv\u00e1 herr vi\u00f0 d\u00edki\u201d (the [Danish] army fought alongside the moat).44 It is difficult to inter- pret this \u201cd\u00edk\u201d as anything other than the ditch mentioned in the Chronicle. The ferocity of the fighting indicated in the Chronicle is also supported in this source. Cnut, in the battle between the Danes and English beside the ditch, is likened to a man \u201csem \u00f3lmum heldi elg\u201d (holding a maddened elk).45 The ag- gression of the earlier battle beside the Thames, as in \u201ch\u01ebr\u00f0 \u00f3x hildar gar\u00f0a hr\u00ed\u00f0\u201d (the harsh storm of battle-forts [i.e., shields] grew; or, the fighting grew fierce), does not match the language with which the second encounter is de- scribed. Nonetheless, this verse is notable for its reference to Ulfcytel (Ulfkell) leading the English defense.46 The \u201cUlfkell\u201d identified in Li\u00f0smannaflokkr is most probably the prominent thegn Ulfcytel of East Anglia, who fought the Danes near Norwich in 1004 and again at Ringmere Heath in 1010. Ulfcytel\u2019s ability to command an army was amply illustrated in 1004, when the Danes admitted that had Ulfcytel\u2019s forces not been under strength they would never have returned to their ships, even though they got \u201cEast Engla folces seo yldesta ofsl\u00e6gen\u201d (the chief men of the East An- glian people killed).47 Ulfcytel, whose name reveals that he was of Scandinavian origin, also appears to have proven himself to be a bold and capable general at London. Li\u00f0smannaflokkr may imply that he had anticipated the actions of the Vik- ings and was lying in wait for them (\u201cl\u00e9t . . . v\u00edkinga at b\u00ed\u00f0a\u201d).48 Ulfcytel\u2019s ability to inflict what Poole describes as \u201cconsiderable damage\u201d may be inferred from the extant poem\u2019s reticence about the outcome of the battle. There is also evidence of dissent in the Danish ranks. The unknown authors of the poem wrote that \u201ctveir hugir runnu\u201d (two intentions were current) amongst the Danes with regard to fighting, following the encounter with Ulfcytel.49 It would seem that there were those who questioned Cnut\u2019s decision to besiege London. As we have seen, how- ever, it would also seem that they were overruled and the siege continued. Other evidence for Ulfcytel being in the London area when Cnut was at- tempting to take the city may be found in another contemporary source. In what may be a reference to the same engagement mentioned in Li\u00f0smanna- flokkr, the skaldic poem Eir\u00edksdr\u00e1pa (Eulogy on Eir\u00edkr) by \u00de\u00f3r\u00f0r Kolbeinsson, 44 Poole, Viking Poems, 88. 45 Poole, Viking Poems, 88. 46 Poole, Viking Poems, 86. 47 ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 52 (s.a. 1004); (E), trans. Swanton, 135\u201336 and n. 1 (s.a. 1004). 48 Poole, Viking Poems, 87. 49 Poole, \u201cSkaldic Verse,\u201d 288.","Chapter 7 King Edmund II Ironside and the Siege of London, 1016 153 reports that his patron, Earl Eir\u00edkr H\u00e1konarson of Hla\u00f0ir (Lade in Trondheim), joined battle west of London (\u201cfyr vestan . . . Lund\u00fan\u201d), where he was resisted by Ulfcytel, who he says received \u201c\u0153glig h\u01ebgg\u201d (frightful blows).50 Like the anon- ymous poets of Li\u00f0smannaflokkr, \u00de\u00f3r\u00f0r does not name the victor of the engage- ment, but rather invites the inference that the two forces were evenly matched and that the English acquitted themselves honorably under Ulfcytel\u2019s command. The location for the battle between Ulfcytel and Eir\u00edkr has not been identified with certainty. In the later nineteenth century Gu\u00f0brandur Vigf\u00fasson tentatively nominated Brentford,51 but his proposal has since been questioned both by Rus- sell Poole and Ann Williams. Poole directs our attention to the Chronicle\u2019s ac- count which says that Edmund Ironside commanded the English at Brentford, while Williams points out that \u00d3ttarr svarti\u2019s Kn\u00fatsdr\u00e1pa (Eulogy on Cnut) gives Cnut as the leader of the Danes on that occasion.52 The references to Ulfcytel in Li\u00f0smannaflokkr (which was composed for Cnut) and the Eir\u00edksdr\u00e1pa (for Earl Eir- \u00edkr), may be seen as two separate proofs that in 1016 the activities of Ulfcytel were not restricted to East Anglia and that, as Williams believes, Ulfcytel was in- volved in the defense of London. Poole argues that Ulfcytel\u2019s absence in the Chronicle\u2019s account of this may be explained as an omission in keeping with the latter\u2019s tendency to favor King Edmund Ironside over Ulfcytel, a commander whose status and authority remain a matter of debate.53 Queen Emma\u2019s Whereabouts in 1013\u20131017 Cnut\u2019s first siege of London in 1016 begs another contentious question: the whereabouts of Emma, King \u00c6thelred\u2019s widow. In the Chronicle, Emma is said to have fled Sveinn Forkbeard\u2019s successful invasion for Normandy at the end of 1013, before reappearing in 1017, when Cnut, having become king, \u201chet . . . fec- can him \u00c6\u00f0elredes lafe \u00fees o\u00f0res cynges him to cwene Ricardes dohtor\u201d (or- dered the widow of the former king \u00c6thelred, Richard\u2019s daughter, to be fetched to him as queen).54 From where, this annal does not say, although, as Alistair Campbell suggests, the entries for 1013 and 1017 may be read in conjunction to 50 Poole, \u201cSkaldic Verse,\u201d 289. 51 Vigfusson, Corpus Poeticum Boreale, II, 107. 52 Poole, \u201cSkaldic Verse,\u201d 288; Williams, \u00c6thelred the Unready, 140; see also \u201c\u00d3ttarr svarti: Kn\u00fatsdr\u00e1pa,\u201d ed. Townend, 775. 53 Poole, \u201cSkaldic Verse,\u201d 289; Williams, \u00c6thelred the Unready, 140. 54 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 74 (s.a. 1017); (E), trans. Swanton, 155 (s.a. 1017); the same in ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 63 (s.a. 1017).","154 David McDermott imply that Emma was absent from England during the sieges of London and re- mained in Normandy until summoned by Cnut.55 This reading has been chal- lenged by Sten K\u00f6rner, who argues that the annals for 1013 and 1017 were written by different scribes and that one might therefore expect there to be lacunae be- tween their accounts.56 If one accepts the involvement of at least two scribes, one of whom was not concerned to maintain an unbroken account of all the topics covered by his or her predecessor, Emma may indeed have returned from Normandy in 1014 with \u00c6thelred, or sometime thereafter, and was later brought to Cnut from a place in England. The implication that Cnut recalled Emma from Normandy has also been questioned by Simon Keynes. He believes that Cnut was \u201ca bit high-handed\u201d in ordering Emma to be \u201cfetched\u201d from abroad and suggests the entry in the Chronicle be read with the meaning that Emma remained in Eng- land after \u00c6thelred\u2019s death and was detained by the Danes until summoned by Cnut.57 Support for the strong possibility that Emma was in London, at least dur- ing Cnut\u2019s first siege, may be found in Li\u00f0smannaflokkr, whose stanza 8 refers to an \u201cekkja\u201d (widow) looking out from the walls, while stanza 9 contains a refer- ence to a \u201chorna Hl\u01ebkk\u201d (drinking-horn Valkyrie [i.e., lady]) looking over the bank of the Thames. The unnamed widow is said to watch Cnut as he \u201cs\u0153kir snarla borgar karla\u201d (smartly attacks the borough\u2019s churls [i.e., the city\u2019s garri- son]). Although the Norse word ekkja (widow) does not have to be literal in skaldic verse, Poole believes that it is here in Li\u00f0smannaflokkr. He is also persua- sive in his reasoning that the most significant widow in England at that time was Queen Emma; given that she subsequently married Cnut, it is most probably Emma whom the poem records observing Cnut from the walls of London.58 Despite the apparent disagreement in the earliest English and Scandina- vian sources concerning Emma\u2019s presence in London when it was first be- sieged, most of the remaining primary sources place her in the city. Although Thietmar\u2019s account of events at London, cited briefly above, is described by Keynes as \u201cgarbled\u201d and \u201cbeyond our powers of comprehension,\u201d he suggests that credence be given to the claim that Emma was in London. Thietmar, Keynes reminds us, was contemporary to the events he recorded.59 By Williams we are also reminded that Thietmar received his information about England from a \u201creliable witness,\u201d presumably the Sewald who informed Thietmar of 55 Encomium, ed. Campbell, xliv. 56 K\u00f6rner, Battle of Hastings, 9. 57 Keynes, \u201c\u00c6thelings in Normandy,\u201d 181; see also Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, 23, and Williams, \u00c6thelred the Unready, 142. 58 Poole, \u201cSkaldic Verse,\u201d 290. 59 Keynes, \u201c\u00c6thelings in Normandy,\u201d 176\u201377.","Chapter 7 King Edmund II Ironside and the Siege of London, 1016 155 the death in 1012 of Archbishop \u00c6lfheah.60 Support for Thietmar can also be found in other sources. William of Jumi\u00e8ges puts Emma in London when \u00c6thelred died, and she is said to be there when Cnut, hearing of the king\u2019s death, is reported to have removed Emma from the city (\u201cEmmam reginam abstractam ab urbe\u201d) and married her.61 William of Jumi\u00e8ges is an admittedly late source, having written his account in ca. 1070 or 1071.62 Like Thietmar, he is prone to error, and Poole de- scribes him as a \u201cshaky source for events early in the [eleventh] century.\u201d How- ever, with regard to the assertion that Emma was in London, Poole also argues that William, being a member of the entourage of Emma\u2019s great-nephew, William of Normandy, would have been a \u201cwell-informed, if biased witness.\u201d63 Keynes also supports William of Jumi\u00e8ges\u2019s credibility here, suggesting that as Emma might not have escaped the city, William\u2019s report of her being taken from London is com- patible with the Chronicle\u2019s account that she was \u201cfetched\u201d by Cnut.64 In addition to Li\u00f0smannaflokkr, two other Scandinavian sources indicate that Emma was in England during 1016. The thirteenth-century Kn\u00fdtlinga saga tells us that Emma at- tempted to sail to Normandy immediately after \u00c6thelred\u2019s death, but was pre- vented from doing so; with Emma forcibly taken before him, Cnut follows his counselors\u2019 advice and promptly marries Emma.65 Another relatively reliable late source, the fourteenth-century Appendix to J\u00f3msv\u00edkinga saga, has a similar ac- count in which Earl Thorkell, finding Emma on board a ship intercepted by him, returns her to England and successfully persuades Cnut to marry her.66 Unique amongst the primary sources, the Encomium Emmae Reginae claims unequivocally that Emma was in Normandy when Cnut sought her out for his wife.67 Despite this explicit declaration, James Campbell doubts the reliability of the Encomiast here, whose panegyric of Emma \u201ccompletely suppresses\u201d her marriage to \u00c6thelred and omits her dead husband\u2019s name from the narrative.68 The eco- nomic treatment of certain facts and the exclusion of others, it is suggested, cast doubt on the reliability of some of the Encomium\u2019s contents. Given the circumstan- ces in which the Encomiast was writing, Keynes suggests, the singularity of his nar- rative should not be treated as unexpected. Emma, having returned from exile to 60 Chronicon, ed. Holtzmann, 336; Williams, \u00c6thelred the Unready, 141. 61 Gesta Normannorum Ducum, ed. van Houts, 20\u201321. 62 Gesta Normannorum Ducum, ed. van Houts, 22\u201323; 67. 63 Poole, \u201cSkaldic Verse,\u201d 290\u201391. 64 Keynes, \u201c\u00c6thelings in Normandy,\u201d 183. 65 Danakonunga S\u01ebgur, ed. Bjarni Gu\u00f0nason, 107 (chap. 9). 66 Encomium, ed. Campbell, 92\u201393. 67 Encomium, ed. Campbell, 32\u201333. 68 James Campbell, \u201cEngland, France, Flanders and Germany,\u201d 256.","156 David McDermott be restored to power beside her sons Harthacnut and Edward, enjoyed a \u201cmoment of glory\u201d in the years 1041\u20131042 in which she commissioned the Encomiast ex- pressly to praise her. To do this successfully, the Encomiast would have had to ne- gotiate the complexities of Emma\u2019s career before her restoration. One way for him to achieve this objective was to stress Emma\u2019s connection to Cnut and ignore her earlier marriage to \u00c6thelred. To be consistent with this omission, the Encomiast would have had to claim that Emma was in Normandy when Cnut sent for her.69 In this way, Emma was probably in London when the city was first besieged by Cnut. The majority of sources say that Emma was either in London or trying to escape England at this time. The unnamed \u201cwidow\u201d in Li\u00f0smannaflokkr may be Emma, and it is only the absence of references to her in the Chronicle, be- tween her leaving for Normandy in 1013 and being brought to Cnut in 1016, that creates the impression that she was abroad in the interval. Emma\u2019s own claim to have been out of the country is most probably untrue, a falsehood perpe- trated to facilitate her acceptance by the Anglo-Danish regime. Cnut Leaves the Siege to Face Edmund It was most probably the resolute resistance of the city\u2019s defenders, as recorded in most sources, that persuaded Cnut to leave the siege of London to part of his army. The costly encounter with Ulfcytel\u2019s forces somewhere near the city should also be considered a contributory factor. With the momentum of his conquest ap- pearing to stall, with signs of discord in the ranks, and with the losses necessarily incurred during the assaults, Cnut left a contingent of his army to maintain the siege and protect the ships. According to John of Worcester, he marched into Wes- sex to engage with Edmund Ironside.70 Having so far failed to take London, Cnut may have thought that defeating Edmund in battle was his only way to expedite the city\u2019s capitulation and shorten his campaign. Although it is unknown when Cnut abandoned the siege and when he encountered Edmund, the sources are con- sistent in locating the first battle between them at Penselwood (Somerset), which lies in western Wessex near the boundaries of Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire. The position of Penselwood makes it likely that Edmund recruited his army from all three counties,71 and that support for him was strongest in western Wessex. In re- lation to descriptions of Edmund\u2019s other battles, the reference in the Chronicle to 69 Keynes, \u201c\u00c6thelings in Normandy,\u201d 183\u201384. 70 Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 486\u201387. 71 Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, I, 421\u201322.","Chapter 7 King Edmund II Ironside and the Siege of London, 1016 157 Penselwood is unusually brief, stating simply that a battle occurred.72 However, the historical narratives of the later Norman period are unanimous in making Ed- mund the victor of the engagement.73 The discrepancy between the earlier and later sources may be resolved by Stafford\u2019s argument that writers of history in the twelfth century sought to commemorate the Anglo-Saxon past.74 For this reason, in the absence of a detailed account in the Chronicle, the twelfth-century apologists for pre-Conquest England would have been inclined to declare Edmund the victor. The Chronicle creates the impression that another battle was fought shortly after Penselwood between Cnut and Edmund at Sherston (Wiltshire) after mid- summer in 1016.75 Williams suggests that the westerly location of Sherston, close to the borders of Wiltshire, Somerset, and Gloucestershire, indicates that the more easterly parts of Wessex were then under Danish control.76 This sug- gestion is supported by the similarly western location of Penselwood. The prob- ability that Edmund\u2019s power base was in the west of Wessex is also suggested by John of Worcester\u2019s account that the English rebel, the Mercian ealdorman Eadric Streona, exhorted the men of Dorset, Devon, and Wiltshire to desert Ed- mund\u2019s army.77 Other named English defectors were the otherwise unknown \u00c6lfm\u00e6r Darling and (uniquely recorded by John of Worcester) \u00c6lfgar, son of Meaw.78 The defection of \u00c6lfgar, a Gloucestershire magnate, is significant. Tim- othy Bolton has established that \u00c6lfgar had estates in Devon and Dorset, coun- ties also putatively represented in Edmund\u2019s army.79 If men from these counties had been recruited by \u00c6lfgar for the Danes, Edmund did not have support from everyone in the aforementioned areas. The possibility of political disaffection within a single county is also illustrated by John of Worcester\u2019s assertion that a section of Cnut\u2019s army came from Wiltshire. These defections, along with the alleged collaboration of Hampshire,80 further illustrate the profound political fragmentation of Wessex and southern Mercia. 72 ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 149 (s.a. 1016). 73 Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Mynors, Thomson, and Winterbottom, I, 314\u201315; Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 486\u201387; Historia Anglorum, ed. and trans. Greenway, 356\u201357. 74 Stafford, Unification and Conquest, 20. 75 ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 149\u201351 (s.a. 1016). 76 Williams, \u00c6thelred the Unready, 143. 77 Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 488\u201389. 78 ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 150\u201351 (s.a. 1016); Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 486\u201387. 79 Bolton, Empire of Cnut, 38\u201339. The family of \u00c6lfgar meaw is discussed in Williams, World Before Domesday, 13\u201315. 80 Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 486\u201387.","158 David McDermott Most sources report that the battle of Sherston ended with the two armies going different ways as if by mutual consent, with neither gaining an outright victory.81 There is evidence, however, that Edmund won both a moral and prac- tical victory at Sherston, for William of Malmesbury, albeit uniquely, records that the West Saxons who had sided with Cnut recognized Edmund as their \u201cdominum legitimum\u201d (rightful lord).82 Since these sources repeatedly refer to Edmund subsequently raising several armies in Wessex, it seems likely that after Sherston his position in the region had become more secure, and William of Malmesbury\u2019s assertion may have some basis in fact. If John of Worcester\u2019s account may be trusted, Cnut\u2019s decision to desert the field under the cover of darkness to resume the siege of London is also significant.83 The clandestine manner of the Danes\u2019 departure suggests they did not want to be attacked as they left. It can also be argued, and has been by Jeffrey James, that Cnut, by leaving possession of the field to Edmund, was effectively admitting defeat: re- taining the battlefield is traditionally an indicator of victory.84 Welsh Warriors with King Edmund? Edmund responded to Cnut\u2019s abandonment of Sherston by raising another army in Wessex and pursuing him back to London.85 Perhaps the most puzzling reference to the composition of this army is made by Thietmar, who says that the force, inaccurately reported to have been led by the \u00e6theling \u00c6thelstan, contained a contingent of \u201cBritanni\u201d (Britons). Since this is unlikely to be a syn- onym of \u201cAngli,\u201d a word which, as Poole has observed, Thietmar uses for the English several times,86 it is more probable that Thietmar refers to the \u201cBritish,\u201d or Brythonic, inhabitants of this island, otherwise known as the Welsh. Al- though Thietmar\u2019s inclusion of the \u00e6theling \u00c6thelstan in the relief force, as we have seen, illustrates his susceptibility to errors, a reference in Li\u00f0smannaflokkr allows for the possibility that the Welsh had already participated in defending London from Cnut. Stanza 8, recounting how Cnut attacked the city\u2019s garrison, 81 ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 150\u201351 (s.a. 1016); Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Mynors, Thom- son, and Winterbottom, I, 314\u201315; Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 488\u201389; Historia Anglorum, ed. and trans. Greenway, 356\u201357. 82 Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Mynors, Thomson, and Winterbottom, I, 314\u201315. 83 Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 488\u201389. 84 James, An Onslaught of Spears, 175. 85 ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 150\u201351 (s.a. 1016). 86 Poole, \u201cSkaldic Verse,\u201d 294.","Chapter 7 King Edmund II Ironside and the Siege of London, 1016 159 says \u201cdynr \u00e1 brezkum brynjum bl\u00f3\u00f0iss\u201d (the blood-ice [i.e., sword] rings against British mailcoats).87 In the context of the siege of London, the term \u201cbrezkar\u201d or \u201cBretar,\u201d words which denote the \u201cWelsh,\u201d have been explained as \u201cpoetical licence\u201d to mean the English, as a term \u201cbelonging to all the inhabitants of Brit- ain.\u201d88 However, as Poole has demonstrated, other skaldic poetry does not sup- port such an interpretation. When ascribing national names to the various peoples of the British Isles, several skaldic works use \u201cbrezkir\u201d or \u201cBretar\u201d for the Welsh with a specificity which argues against any general application to the British Isles.89 Although, as Poole indicates, the reference to Welsh coats of mail in Li\u00f0s- mannaflokkr does not necessarily mean they were worn by Welshmen,90 it is more plausible that part of Edmund Ironside\u2019s army at London was recruited in the more westerly reaches of Wessex, where the population was more Brythonic than English. Edmund can be connected to the most westerly part of England, specifically Cornwall, which in the mid-ninth century was described in the Win- chester recension of the Chronicle as \u201cWestwalas\u201d (West Wales).91 An early di- ploma of Cnut confirms a grant made by Edmund in exchange for property he held in Cornwall.92 If Edmund enlisted men from this county, it is feasible that Thietmar\u2019s \u201cBritanni\u201d refers to men of Cornwall. Equally enigmatic is Henry of Huntingdon\u2019s report that Edmund brought to London a team \u201cmanu electa bel- latorum\u201d (of hand-picked warriors).93 Although neither the origin of this select group, nor the source, if any, used by Henry is disclosed, the reference to elite soldiers might allude to Thietmar\u2019s \u201cBritanni,\u201d given Edmund\u2019s starting point. Otherwise, Edmund\u2019s professionals may have been a body of warriors similar to the Danish housecarls introduced to England in the early eleventh century.94 87 Poole, Viking Poems, 88. 88 Zachrisson, Romans, Kelts and Saxons, 47; Ashdown, English and Norse Documents, 207. 89 Skjaldedigtning, ed. Finnur J\u00f3nsson, B.I, 148\u201352; Heimskringla I, ed. Bjarni A\u00f0albjarnarson, 264\u201365 (\u00d3l\u00e1fs saga Tryggvasonar, chap. 30); Orkneyinga Saga, ed. Finnbogi Gu\u00f0mundsson, 59\u201362 (chaps. 33\u201334); Poole, \u201cSkaldic Verse,\u201d 292. 90 Poole, \u201cSkaldic Verse,\u201d 294. 91 ASC (A), ed. Bately, 42 (s.a. 835); (A), trans. Swanton, 62 and n. 9 (s.a. 835 [for 838]); see also Charles-Edwards, Wales and the Britons, 432, 494, 512\u201313. 92 Electronic Sawyer, S 951 (s.a. 1018). 93 Historia Anglorum, ed. and trans. Greenway, 356\u201357. 94 Flateyjarb\u00f3k, ed. Vigfusson and Unger, I, 203, 205, and II, 22; Sveno\u2019s \u201cLex Castrensis,\u201d in Scriptores Rerum Danicarum, ed. Langebek, Suhm, Engelstoft, and Werlauff, III, 144; Larson, \u201cThe King\u2019s Household,\u201d 158\u201359.","160 David McDermott King Edmund\u2019s Relief of London Most sources are silent concerning how Edmund\u2019s army approached London, but one of the Chronicle\u2019s recensions recounts how Edmund concealed his ar- rival by keeping to the north of the Thames and descended upon the besiegers by emerging through \u201cCl\u00e6ihangran\u201d (Clayhanger), whose location (not the Clayhanger near Walsall) was reliably identified by Sir Frank Stenton as Clay- hill Farm, Tottenham.95 The exact manner in which Edmund relieved London is also unknown. The account in the Chronicle is typically laconic, recording only that Edmund \u201cburuhwaru aredde\u201d (rescued the city\u2019s inhabitants) and \u201chere aflymde to scipe\u201d (drove the [Danish] raiders to their ships).96 In stark contrast to the Chronicle\u2019s account of fighting at Penselwood and Sherston, there is a conspicuous lack of any reference to hostilities during the liberation of London. On the other hand, it is possible that blows were not exchanged, for William of Malmesbury may be close to the truth when he says that the Danes beat a hasty retreat upon hearing of Edmund\u2019s approach.97 The notion that Edmund won a bloodless victory is even supported by an apologist for Cnut, L. M. Larson, who argues that Cnut was unable to conduct a siege while fighting such a deter- mined opponent as Edmund, and so prudently withdrew to his ships.98 Contrary to the other sources, the Encomium, which has probably telescoped events, says that Cnut accepted an invitation from the Londoners to occupy the city, but then, doubting the loyalty of the citizens, left London as soon as Ed- mund arrived. The Encomiast also asserts that Edmund challenged Cnut to single combat, which he refused, and that the Danes departed to winter on the Isle of Sheppey.99 This account is highly dubious, for it is unlikely that Edmund arrived just as Cnut was leaving, or that he would stake his crown on the outcome of a duel. Furthermore, it is implausible that Edmund would have allowed the Danes to leave without pursuing them. Instead, it is more credible that the Encomiast\u2019s account was a fiction, made to spare Emma the embarrassment of hearing it said that Cnut failed to secure London while Edmund was still alive to oppose him. Most of the sources say that Edmund, having lifted the siege, remained in London for two days before traveling to Brentford to face the Danes in battle and 95 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, 102 (s.a. 1016); Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 391; Cover, Place Names of Middlesex, 79. 96 ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 61 (s.a. 1016). 97 Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Mynors, Thomson, and Winterbottom, I, 314\u201315. 98 Larson, Canute the Great, 89\u201390. 99 Encomium, ed. Campbell, 22\u201325.","Chapter 7 King Edmund II Ironside and the Siege of London, 1016 161 dislodge them further.100 While in London, Edmund may have taken counsel with the city\u2019s leading citizens and attended to its defenses, but Larson plausibly suggests that Edmund stayed there until that part of Cnut\u2019s fleet that had re- mained had joined the rest of the Danish ships. Brentford, connected to London and the West Country by a Roman road, may have been chosen by Cnut in order to facilitate further attacks on London. Both the Chronicle and the later Latin Chronicles give victory to the English at Brentford, although a passage in the ca. 1027 Kn\u00fatsdr\u00e1pa of \u00d3ttarr svarti, which records a Danish victory, may also illumi- nate the composition of Edmund\u2019s army. Unique to this Kn\u00fatsdr\u00e1pa is the state- ment that Cnut has taken Frisian lives at Brentford.101 If \u00d3ttarr\u2019s account is reliable, his eulogy may tell us that Edmund employed foreign mercenaries, as his father \u00c6thelred had \u2013 and as Sveinn and Cnut did, of course.102 The possibil- ity that a section of Edmund\u2019s army was motivated by greed for gain, rather than by love of country, would seem to be supported by the reference in the Chronicle to a section of the English army at Brentford drowning in pursuit of loot.103 If mercenaries were present at Brentford, they may have been with Edmund at Lon- don, which would help to explain the origin of the elite warriors alleged to have contributed to the liberation of the city. Cnut\u2019s Second and Third Sieges of London The Chronicle says that after Brentwood, Edmund left London and withdrew to Wessex to assemble another army. The probability of ferocious fighting at Brent- ford may be inferred from this account of Edmund\u2019s move, which suggests that his forces had been severely depleted. The Chronicle also reports that Edmund put the Danes to flight, implying an English victory,104 but Poole suggests that the London- ers may have perceived the outcome of this battle differently. From their perspec- tive, Brentford may have been only a temporary interruption of Cnut\u2019s assault on the city.105 In Edmund\u2019s absence, at any rate, Cnut\u2019s Danes \u201csona\u201d (immediately) 100 ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 150\u201351 (s.a. 1016); Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 488\u201389; Historia Anglorum, ed. and trans. Greenway, 356\u201357. William of Malmesbury says that Edmund followed the retreating Danes; Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Mynors, Thom- son, and Winterbottom, I, 314\u201315. 101 \u201c\u00d3ttarr svarti: Kn\u00fatsdr\u00e1pa,\u201d ed. Townend, 775. 102 Abels, \u201cHousehold Men, Mercenaries and Vikings,\u201d 152, 155\u201357; Lavelle, Alfred\u2019s Wars, 105. 103 ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 150\u201351 (s.a. 1016). 104 ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 150\u201351 (s.a. 1016). 105 Poole, \u201cSkaldic Verse,\u201d 275.","162 David McDermott besieged London for the second time. There is also a suggestion that their efforts were intensified, for the Chronicle has the Danes attacking strongly \u201cge be w\u00e6tere ge be land\u201d (by both water and land).106 The city\u2019s staunch resistance may once again have proved effective, for the Danes abandoned this siege and left with their ships to raid in Mercia.107 Perhaps from the fact that the sources agree about the Danes pillaging southern Mercia around London, Larson concluded, prob- ably correctly, that they left London because the harvest had recently been gathered.108 If this is correct, the timing of the Danes\u2019 plundering suggests that late August or early September may have been the season when Edmund relieved London a second time. There were subsequent engagements between Edmund and Cnut beyond London. In Otford in Kent, Edmund intercepted the mounted section of the Danish army taking plunder from southern Mercia to the Isle of Sheppey. It is said that Edmund \u201cofsloh heora swa feala swa he offeran mihte\u201d (killed as many as he could overtake), before halting at Aylesford, where, according to the Chronicle, he was persuaded by Ealdorman Eadric to discon- tinue the chase.109 After his defeat the following month in Essex, however, Ed- mund retreated west and the Danes besieged London a third time. Defeat and Death of King Edmund There was a decisive battle at \u201cAssandun\u201d in Essex on October 18, 1016: either Ashdon in north-west or Ashingdon in south-east Essex.110 Eadric Streona is said to have played a crucial role, deserting the English ranks, provoking fur- ther desertions, and contributing to Edmund\u2019s defeat, his flight westwards and the final Danish victory over his forces which was achieved, despite possible reinforcements from Wales,111 near the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire.112 In the following peace negotiations at Olney (now Alney) in the same county, the 106 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 73 (s.a. 1016); (DE), trans. Swanton, 150\u201351 (s.a. 1016). 107 ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 150\u201351 (s.a. 1016). 108 ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 150\u201351 (s.a. 1016); Gesta Regum Anglorum, ed. Mynors, Thom- son, and Winterbottom, I, 316\u201317; Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 488\u201389; Historia Anglorum, ed. and trans. Greenway, 356\u201357; Larson, Canute the Great, 91. 109 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 73\u201374 (s.a. 1016); (D), ed. Cubbin, 61 (s.a. 1016); (DE), trans. Swanton, 151. 110 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 74 (s.a. 1016). 111 Lawson, Cnut: England\u2019s Viking King, 28. 112 ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 152 (s.a. 1016).","Chapter 7 King Edmund II Ironside and the Siege of London, 1016 163 kingdom of England was divided, with King Edmund taking Wessex and King Cnut receiving the remainder.113 London continued to be associated with Edmund and Cnut after the cessation of hostilities. Immediately following the settlement at Olney, Cnut and his army win- tered in London, whose inhabitants, according to the Chronicle, arranged their own truce with the Danes and so \u201cheom fri\u00f0 gebohtan\u201d (bought peace from them).114 The Chronicle does not clarify what is meant by this phrase, but one may imagine that the city was required to make some form of payment to the Danish force lifting the siege. Edmund may have been badly wounded during his last encounter with the Danes. It might be inferred from the Chronicle\u2019s statement \u201cfeng Eadmund cing to Weastseaxon\u201d (King Edmund succeeded to Wessex) that he did not return to London but traveled to his political heartland at the conclusion of the peace talks.115 John of Worcester says that he was in London when he died,116 but the lack of corroboration for his claim, together with the late composition of his narrative, gives sufficient grounds to doubt John\u2019s reliability in this matter. It seems unlikely that Edmund would have gone to London so soon after Olney; in Larson\u2019s view it was improbable that Edmund would have been there at the same time as the city was occupied by Cnut and his fleet.117 At any rate, Edmund died on November 30, 1016.118 Although London eventually submitted and indeed hosted Cnut\u2019s first post- war assembly towards the end of 1016,119 the repeated and successful resistance of this city through the war most probably led Cnut to take special measures. While he needed London for its economy, which was unequaled on the island, experience had taught him not to trust the loyalty of a city that might, as Mat- thew Townend suggests, become a \u201ccrucible\u201d of rebellion.120 The continued an- tipathy of the Londoners to Danish rule, as well as Cnut\u2019s response to this, are topics beyond the scope of this chapter, but it is worth noting that in 1018 the city suffered a tax which could be described as a punitive.121 An earlier exemplary action witnessed by London was Cnut\u2019s execution of Ealdorman Eadric in 1017.122 113 ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 153 (s.a. 1016). 114 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 74 (s.a. 1006); (DE), trans. Swanton, 152\u201353 (s.a. 1016). 115 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 74 (s.a. 1006); (DE), trans. Swanton, 152\u201353 (s.a. 1016). 116 Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 492\u201393. 117 Larson, Canute the Great, 99\u2013100. 118 Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 492\u201393. 119 Bolton, Cnut the Great, 93. 120 Bolton, Cnut the Great, 110. Townend, \u201cContextualising the Kn\u00fatsdr\u00e1pur,\u201d 167. 121 ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 154\u201355 (s.a. 1018); Hill, \u201cAn Urban Policy for Cnut?,\u201d 103. 122 ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 154\u201355 (s.a. 1017); Chronicon ex chronicis, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 504\u20135.","164 David McDermott And then in June 1023, as we have seen, the remains of Archbishop \u00c6lfheah, killed by Danes in 1012, were forcibly translated from London to Canterbury, de- priving St. Paul\u2019s of an important source of income.123 Conclusion: Cnut\u2019s Reluctant Capital In the course of 1016 London was besieged three times by the Danes, although they failed to break in, while their attacks, which conformed to a pattern of Vi- king behavior stretching from the First Viking Age, proved ineffective. Upon the death of \u00c6thelred, London demonstrated its support for Edmund by elect- ing him king and remained loyal to the English cause throughout the war. While the battle for control of the city, and the greater war for the mastery of England, was fought primarily between Edmund Ironside and Cnut, other En- glish nobles contributed to safeguarding London and during the first siege the city\u2019s defenses were most probably organized by Ulfcytel of East Anglia. It also seems likely that \u00c6thelred\u2019s widow, Emma, resided in the city during the sieges. Cnut\u2019s abandonment of the first siege, to bring Edmund to battle in Wes- sex, enabled Edmund to distinguish himself as a military commander and to assert his authority unchallenged throughout the region. Edmund\u2019s relief of the second siege at Brentford may have been accomplished with the assistance of non-English troops, an elite band of Welsh extraction, or Frisian or other for- eign mercenaries; possibly a combination. When Cnut abandoned his siege of London a third time, he made himself vulnerable, but the intervention of Eal- dorman Eadric aided him and prevented Edmund from capitalizing on the dam- age he inflicted on the Danes at Aylesbury. At the conclusion of the war, London was included in that half of the king- dom ceded to Cnut. It was then that the garrison, perhaps concluding that further resistance was impracticable, finally submitted. Nonetheless, throughout Cnut\u2019s reign, London remained a center of anti-Danish sentiment. The city\u2019s continued patriotism may be attributed, at least in part, to its hold over the remains of King \u00c6thelred, whose later reign suffered a resurgence of Viking activity, as well as 123 ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 142\u201343 (s.a. 1012), 156\u201357 (s.a. 1023); Rumble, Reign of Cnut, 282\u2013315; Bolton, Cnut the Great, 112. See North and Goeres in the Prologue to this book (19\u201324).","Chapter 7 King Edmund II Ironside and the Siege of London, 1016 165 over the body of St. \u00c6lfheah, the former archbishop of Canterbury whom the Danes had killed four years earlier. One might also consider the city\u2019s antipathy to Cnut to have been influenced by its collective memory of Edmund Ironside, liberator of the city which had elevated him to the throne. For Cnut, the king who replaced him, London was nonetheless the jewel in the crown.","","Part II: Cnut\u2019s Kingdom","","Ryan Lavelle Chapter 8 Cnut, King of the English, 1017\u20131019 How rulers of England and their neighbours viewed their control of the lowland British polity that had been emerging during the course of the tenth and early eleventh centu- ries remains a contentious question, one which has been thrown into sharp relief in recent years by George Molyneaux\u2019s valuable reassessment of tenth-century England.1 For his review of England in this century, Molyneaux takes Cnut\u2019s assumption of power in 1017, recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, as his starting point. Although, as Molyneux is quick to point out, Cnut\u2019s division in 1017 of the kingdom into four (Wessex \u201chim sylfan\u201d (for himself), East Anglia for Thorkell, Mercia for Eadric, and Northumbria for Eir\u00edkr) does not mean that the credit for a \u201ckingdom of England\u201d should go to him, Cnut\u2019s big division may have meant that he was in effective control of more territory than his West Saxon royal predecessors had enjoyed: his loss of Loth- ian may have become a concrete reality after the battle of Carham in 1018, but much of the territory from the Tees down to the coast of the English Channel was more than superficially subordinate to him. Such control had been within the scope of the ambi- tion of rulers after \u00c6thelstan, who might style themselves, as \u00c6thelred did, \u201cEmperor of all the Peoples of Britain,\u201d even while they did not quite manage to live up to this. What distinguished Cnut, however, was a new practical control. This was coupled with an ideological determination on the part of Archbishop Wulfstan, and of other heirs to the tenth-century religious reform movement, to drive the political manifestation of the English identity forward in a polity that could be realized as a \u201ckingdom of England.\u201d Formulations such as the \u201ckingdom of England\u201d or the \u201cterritory\u201d or \u201cearl- dom\u201d of \u201cWessex\u201d may not always have been so clearly defined, use them as we may. A town or city could be identified to contemporaries more in terms of the geo- graphical space of the settlement than in terms of the \u201cburhware\u201d (town-dwellers) within, but territories, whether regnes or prouinciae, remained defined by the sub- jection of people within them. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle provides something ap- proximating to an official record of Cnut\u2019s reign, at least at the start of it: Cnut may have succeeded to a \u201crice\u201d (kingdom), but it was \u201ceallon Angelcynnes ryce\u201d (to a kingdom of all the English people) that he did so.2 This chapter will examine how 1 Molyneaux, Formation of the English Kingdom, 1\u20134, referring to ASC (CDE), s.a. 1017. 2 (CDE), s.a. 1017: ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, 103; (D), ed. Cubbin, 63; (E), ed. Irvine, 74; (D), trans. Swanton, 154. For the official standing of the Chronicle, see Brooks, \u201cWhy is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle about Kings?\u201d; Konshuh, \u201cAnr\u00e6d in their Unr\u00e6d.\u201d https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1515\/9781501513336-009","170 Ryan Lavelle Cnut found himself in control of that group of people and its land, an entity far larger than the Danish area with which he had previously been engaged.3 Cnut\u2019s Assumption of Power Cnut, a young man aged not much more than twenty, was able to adapt himself to notions of English identity and the forms and structures of English power, and to make them adapt to him in turn. The possible identification of Cnut as an English- man is not a new one. Whereas L. M. Larson\u2019s Cnut of 1912 remained implacably an old Viking (albeit a politically agile Christian one), only remaining in England because of the dangers of its revolt,4 the view from Sir Frank Stenton in 1943 was that Cnut was one of the last of the barbarians to be converted by Christian civiliza- tion: although Stenton did not see Cnut as an \u201cAnglo-Saxon\u201d king, he praised his \u201centhusiastic devotion to the interests of the church in England.\u201d5 It is worth not- ing how such assessments consider Cnut\u2019s position in terms of his control of an agglomeration of territories (or even empire), or how historians at least assess him in the knowledge that he would come to control his brother\u2019s Danish territory when the time came. There is good justification for a focus on that transmarine achievement: Cnut had retained a large number of ships. He reacted so rapidly to the death of his brother Haraldr in 1019 that it would be surprising if he had not had Den- mark in his sights in some way. Recent books by Timothy Bolton, as well as other chapters in this volume, have done much to shift the focus back to Cnut\u2019s interests in the North Sea and its environs.6 It has been suggested that the ap- pearance of Cnut\u2019s name on some early Danish coins, minted according to a de- sign owing something to an \u00c6thelredian coin pattern, is an indication that he 3 Darby, in Domesday England, 90, suggests a population of between 1.2 and 1.6 million south of the Tees in 1086, a number which we may assume to have been slightly smaller at the start of the century. The modern measure of the area of England is 130,279 sq km (approximately 70,000 hides south of the Tees in Domesday Book). See Abels, \u201cEnglish Logistics and Military Administration, 871\u20131066,\u201d 262. Compare also with Denmark\u2019s 42,931 sq km (more like 60,000 sq km when Sk\u00e5ne and territory in modern Sweden are taken into account; the loose hege- monic control over parts of Norway focused on the Oslo Fjord area is more difficult to define in terms of land measurements). 4 Larson, Canute the Great, 112, 162\u201379. 5 Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 397. On this issue, see Ellis in this volume, p. 357. 6 Bolton, Empire of Cnut and Cnut the Great. In this volume, see particularly Spejlborg, pp. 337\u201353, and Bolton, p. 459\u201384.","Chapter 8 Cnut, King of the English, 1017\u20131019 171 was recognized as a co-ruler with his brother Haraldr before 1018\/1019, but the evidence is not conclusive.7 In any case, while a suggestion of joint rule might help us understand the smoothness of Danish succession in the wake of Har- aldr\u2019s death, it remains significant that by then Cnut had been recognized as king of England for two years and could only be a nominal king of Denmark. At best, he would have been in the race for the crown if we go with the idea that, in his absence, his interests there were promoted by \u00c6lfgifu, his English wife from Northampton. The plausible but sadly unprovable assumption behind this idea is that \u00c6lfgifu married Cnut in 1013\u00d71014, left England in the wake of his father\u2019s death and King \u00c6thelred\u2019s return from Normandy, and remained in Denmark when Cnut sailed to England in 1015.8 Cnut could not have known that his brother Haraldr would die when he did, but he did know that Haraldr would con- tinue to rule in Denmark and that in due course he may have been expected to determine the Danish succession for his own heirs.9 When considering Cnut\u2019s reign in England, we often reach for parallels between Cnut and William of Nor- mandy, whose military conquest of England came almost exactly half a century after that of Cnut.10 However, William conquered and ruled England in the knowledge that he remained duke of Normandy. Sveinn Forkbeard, who em- barked on conquest knowing that his patrimony was in the hands of Haraldr, his eldest son, is a closer parallel to William than Cnut in this respect. England was more than a consolation prize for losing Denmark, but for a period Cnut had to make what he could of English kingship alone.11 7 Blackburn, \u201cDo Cnut\u2019s First Coins?\u201d This is discussed critically by Jonsson, \u201cCoinage of Cnut,\u201d 223\u201324, more positively by Bolton, Empire of Cnut, 155\u201356, and then less favourably in his Cnut the Great, 52, n. 91. I am grateful to Gareth Williams for discussion of this. 8 For \u00c6lfgifu\u2019s position, see Bolton, \u201c\u00c6lfgifu of Northampton\u201d; however, for the suggestion that she was in England for much of Cnut\u2019s early reign, based on a reference in the Thorney Abbey Liber Vitae and the \u201cof Northampton\u201d byname in ASC (D), s.a. 1035, see Lawson, Cnut, 123\u201324. 9 Bolton, in Cnut the Great, 130, deals with the question of Harald\u2019s unpopularity in Denmark in the problematic Annales Ryenses, though does not countenance his deposition; a picture of unpopularity may not be a world away from the unrest in Denmark at the time of Cnut\u2019s arrival there in the Vita \u00c6dwardi Regis, ed. Barlow, 10\u201311 (chap. 1). 10 Conquests in England, ed. Ashe and Ward, the outcome of the other major conference which considered \u201cCnut 1016 in 2016,\u201d relates to the parallels between Cnut and William more explicitly than the current volume. 11 Lund, however, notes Cnut\u2019s influence in Denmark during his brother\u2019s lifetime as a useful comment on the principle of the elder son retaining the patrimonial territory, also drawing a significant parallel with the experience of William of Normandy\u2019s conquest in 1066, in \u201cCnut\u2019s Danish Kingdom,\u201d 28\u201330.","172 Ryan Lavelle Conquering the Kingdom: From North to South Edmund King, writing about the reign of King Stephen (1135\u20131154) in 1994, sug- gested that the idea of assessing the first hundred days of a presidency (with refer- ence to that of Franklin D. Roosevelt) \u201ccan be taken back [to the twelfth century] without anachronism, for it says no more than that the first impressions created by a new regime are crucial in the establishment of its authority.\u201d12 King applied this idea to the reign of Stephen with some success, and the formulation of \u201cthe first hundred days\u201d is a useful tool: it can give a sense of the support for the incum- bent, their hopes, dreams, and a sense of how they begin to respond to \u201cEvents.\u201d Unfortunately, this tool has its limits in the case of Cnut. As we have seen, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle notes the point at which Cnut succeeded to the kingdom in its entry for 1017. Yet questions remain. Did this succession take place immediately after the death of Edmund Ironside on November 30, 1016 (and thus within the temporal boundaries of the year 1017)?13 Or does the annal refer to a coronation ceremony in the summer of 1017, a point at which Cnut\u2019s regime could really be said to have established its authority? We should not forget, either, that the CDE version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle refers to Cnut as \u201ccyng\u201d (king) in terms of his election by the Danish fleet in 1014, his return to Sandwich in 1015, and his cam- paigns in Mercia in 1016. It is possible that his kingship was accepted in the south of England in 1016, which would mean that Cnut was made king of the English three times in the course of four years \u2013 surely a record! The question of a corona- tion ceremony and its possible date is discussed below. However, while a precise assessment of Cnut\u2019s first hundred days, if we interpret this by what he had achieved by March 10, 1017, escapes historical record, there is enough evidence about the start of Cnut\u2019s reign in England to justify making this assessment over a longer timescale than one hundred days. In his 1994 biography of Cnut, the first book-length study of the ruler since 1912, M. K. Lawson emphasizes the agency of \u201cthe most successful of all pre- Conquest rulers in Britain.\u201d14 For all the praise, nonetheless, one cannot help but read Lawson\u2019s Cnut as a figure enveloped by an existing system of English governance and ecclesiastical networks, rather like an incoming Prime Minister stifled by the established policies of Whitehall civil servants. Others have seen the institutions as a machine that could be used: James Campbell\u2019s insistence on the state-driven mechanisms of Cnut\u2019s housecarls was, for him, a validation 12 King, in \u201cIntroduction,\u201d 9\u201310, notes the concept in Schlesinger, Age of Roosevelt, 1\u201322. This approach was not followed, however, in King\u2019s more recent biography, King Stephen. 13 See Metlitskaya earlier in this volume, pp. 113\u201328. 14 Lawson, Cnut: England\u2019s Viking King, 196\u201398, esp. 196.","Chapter 8 Cnut, King of the English, 1017\u20131019 173 of the institutions of the kingdom that Cnut had inherited.15 The late Timothy Reuter provided an abiding image of the manner in which Cnut, like other polit- ical contenders in the tenth through to twelfth centuries, could step behind the controls of a car (presumably a powerful one) because of the inherent stability of the system: \u201clike a car, it needed a driver,\u201d he wrote, \u201cbut anyone who knew how to drive could drive it.\u201d16 The use of these mechanisms was a choice made by Cnut, whose engage- ment with them was active and determined by the development of policy. The apparent ease with which Cnut slipped into forms of Anglo-Saxon kingship and then, in a winning combination with Wulfstan, has been taken to illustrate the apogee of the pre-Conquest achievement, belies just how revolutionary Cnut\u2019s form of kingship was in contemporary English or even European terms. There was a precedent in England during this period for \u201cViking rulership,\u201d a term which must be seen as a shorthand for control of a \u201cfleet-army\u201d and for the ac- quisitive features of kingship with roots in Scandinavia.17 As other chapters in this volume demonstrate, Cnut was not backward in demonstrating his king- ship through war-leadership and in acquiring and distributing wealth.18 Not- withstanding the possibility that that the extant poem Beowulf was copied (or even, as Kiernan claims, composed) during the reign of Cnut (1016\u20131035), the maintenance of cultural links to Scandinavia was evidently not a mere political contrivance, to be picked up at will.19 If Cnut\u2019s patronage is evident in the skaldic poem Li\u00f0smannaflokkr (Soldiers\u2019 Song),20 it was related to the ongoing politics of rivalry between Cnut and the man of the moment, Thorkell the Tall. Perhaps the rivalry between them stemmed from the immediate aftermath of 15 Campbell, \u201cSome Agents and Agencies of the Late Anglo-Saxon State,\u201d 203\u20134; see also Hooper\u2019s reading of housecarls as a private group, in \u201cMilitary Developments in the Reign of Cnut\u201d; both, admittedly, were most interested in Harthacnut\u2019s housecarls, in ASC (C), ed. O\u2019B- rien O\u2019Keeffe, 107 (s.a. 1041) and ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 66 (s.a. 1041). 16 Reuter, \u201cThe Making of England and Germany, 850\u20131050,\u201d 58\u201359. 17 Viking kingship in Britain is discussed in Downham, Viking Kings of Britain and Ireland. 18 For economic and social ties see Spejlborg in this volume, pp. 337\u201353; a perspective on the longer-term background of Cnut\u2019s conquest is provided by the classic paper by Wilson, \u201cDan- ish Kings and England.\u201d Assessments of Cnut\u2019s career in England as a \u201cViking\u201d leader may be seen in Bolton, Cnut the Great, 53\u201391, who also notes (p. 89) that a reliquary seized in battle was kept intact and later was presented to Canterbury, and in my own shorter study, Cnut: North Sea King, esp. 20\u201321. A military perspective (albeit one which foregrounds Thorkell and Sveinn rather than Cnut) is provided by Howard, Swein Forkbeard\u2019s Invasions. 19 Kiernan, Beowulf and the Beowulf Manuscript, 18\u201323, 270\u201378. On the dating of the manu- script, see also North in this volume, pp. 277\u201379. 20 Text edited in \u201cLi\u00f0smannaflokkr,\u201d ed. Poole.","174 Ryan Lavelle their campaign of 1015\u20131016. Cnut\u2019s patronage suggests that he was not un- aware of the significance of presenting himself as a Viking in an English con- text.21 Matthew Townend and Roberta Frank have shown the significance of his patronage of skaldic poets for a Norse-speaking audience who were \u201cenisled,\u201d as Frank put it, \u201cin a sea of Anglophones.\u201d22 Nonetheless, the contextual evi- dence for the composition of Li\u00f0smannaflokkr suggests that some of the other surviving poems which make frequent reference to the control of Norway may coincide with a later period of Cnut\u2019s reign, when there was potential for crisis in an empire which encompassed Norway. The later skaldic poetry, in short, may not reflect the cultural direction of Cnut\u2019s English court at the start of his reign.23 Cnut\u2019s kingship was not simply \u201cViking rulership\u201d in an \u201cEnglish\u201d shell, how- ever. Before the period 1017\u20131019, Cnut\u2019s predecessors as Viking rulers in England included a range of rulers of York, such as his namesake Kn\u00fatr (ca. 900 \u2013 ca. 905),24 Sigtryggr C\u00e1ech (ca. 920\u2013927), \u00d3l\u00e1fr Sigtryggsson (941\u2013944 and 949\u2013952; d. 981), and Eir\u00edkr Bl\u00f3\u00f0\u00f8x (948\u2013949 and 952\u2013954); in East Anglia there was Guthrum, or \u201c\u00c6thel- stan\u201d as he became known, together with the anonymous rulers who may be identi- fied through the St. Edmund currency of the late ninth century. The rule over areas of Britain and Ireland by the leaders of Viking retinues tended more generally to be based on places with access to bodies of water, particularly the Irish Sea, which gave rulers the opportunity to bring together maritime realms.25 Cnut\u2019s eventual creation of an empire based around the North Sea had much in common with this Insular dynamic. What is noteworthy here, however, is that Cnut\u2019s rule initially involved a shift from the traditional means by which a whole host of Anglo-Scandinavian rulers 21 Poole, Viking Poems on War and Peace, 86\u201390; the historical context and dating associated with the events of the last stages of the conquest is discussed in Poole\u2019s \u201cSkaldic Verse and Anglo-Saxon History,\u201d 284\u201386. An alternative reading might relate Li\u00f0smannaflokkr to a com- memoration of glory days as part of the brief reconciliation of Thorkell and Cnut in 1023, fol- lowing similar motives of reconciliation through the commission of artworks by quarrelling Carolingian brothers in the mid-ninth century (for which see McKitterick, The Frankish King- doms, 174). 22 Frank, \u201cKing Cnut in the Verse of his Skalds,\u201d 108; Townend, \u201cContextualizing the Kn\u00fatsdr\u00e1pur.\u201d 23 Townend, in \u201cContextualizing the Kn\u00fatsdr\u00e1pur,\u201d 152\u201362, provides an important discussion of dat- ing. See Lavelle, Cnut: North Sea King, 83\u201385; and Poole, pp. 255\u201376, and North, pp. 284\u201393, in this volume. 24 Possibly one with the Hardacnut (i.e., H\u01ebr\u00f0a-Kn\u00fatr) given as the father of Guthred (i.e., Guthfrith) in the Historia de sancto Cuthberto (chap. 13), datable to the mid to late eleventh century in Northumbria; see North in this volume, p. 298. 25 See Downham, Viking Kings of Britain and Ireland, with a consideration of the Irish Sea basis of Viking kingship in England at 97\u2013123.","Chapter 8 Cnut, King of the English, 1017\u20131019 175 had asserted their control on territory in Britain. While it is difficult to generalize from only a century in which there was some form of political hegemony over low- land Britain, it is at least possible to say that the territorial foci of rulers based outside Wessex naturally differed from the foci of the majority of the West Saxon dynasty. While the territorial possessions of the latter group were concentrated in a region south of the Thames, the rule that Vikings imposed on Northumbria made use of ex- isting structures of power in the north of England in the early tenth century.26 To some extent, a consideration of the reign of \u00c6thelstan (924\u2013939) provides us with a sense of the way in which political power could shift from Wessex to a different region within England when circumstances permitted, even for a ruler of the West Saxon dynasty. Although \u00c6thelstan\u2019s presence in Wessex was not incon- siderable, he seems mostly to have moved about the midlands and north of Eng- land, as the evidence of his assemblies to the north of the Thames suggests.27 Our view of \u00c6thelstan is determined by the exceptional survival of evidence in charters written by a scribe who was meticulous in recording places of assembly. This evi- dence, though restricted to charters, does seem to be commensurate with \u00c6thel- stan\u2019s links with the Mercian nobility and his essentially \u201cpan-British\u201d agenda.28 More than \u00c6thelstan, whose Mercian connections made him \u201csomething of an outsider in Wessex,\u201d29 Cnut was self-evidently a political newcomer whose connec- tions lay outside Wessex. It would therefore have made sense for him to think in terms of England outside Wessex. Here I wish to stress the road not taken: the oppor- tunity existed in the middle of the second decade of the eleventh century for Cnut to rule in a manner which shifted the center of political gravity away from the Thames valley, away from the south of England. That he chose not to do this may suggest a driver slipping behind the controls of Reuter\u2019s car. Cnut\u2019s concentration, nonetheless, on the south of England is all the more striking in the light of the glimpse we are offered into his father\u2019s initial intentions in the Danish conquests of 1013\u20131016. In these campaigns, which appear to differ from the large-scale booty-gathering of the first decade of the eleventh century in which Sveinn was closely involved, the main playing field for Sveinn (and, by extension, Cnut) was the north of England. The fact that Sveinn started to ravage England only after he crossed Watling Street in 1013 seems to be related to a policy of cultivating, as Pauline Stafford pointed out in 1985, 26 Hadley, Northern Danelaw; \u201c\u2018Hamlet and the Princes of Denmark.\u2019\u201d On the political signifi- cance of York, see also Rollason, Northumbria, 500\u20131100, 214\u201330. 27 Hill, Atlas of Anglo-Saxon England, 85, 87. 28 Molyneaux, \u201cWhy were some Tenth-Century English Kings?\u201d; Foot, \u00c6thelstan: First King of England. The geographical significance of a deliberate link between Wessex and Mercia might be noted ca. 926 in the Grateley law code; see Lavelle, \u201cWhy Grateley?\u201d. 29 Foot, \u00c6thelstan: First King of England, 18.","176 Ryan Lavelle an ethnic \u201cDanishness\u201d in the \u201cDanelaw.\u201d30 Although, as Stafford pointed out in a later publication, Sveinn \u201caimed at a conquest of the English kingdom from the North, not merely a revival of the Viking kingdom of York,\u201d31 he seems to have planned to make use of the city for his coronation in February 101432 and was initially buried there before his body was taken to Denmark.33 Cnut also had links with the social and political landscape north of Watling Street. One of these was his marriage to \u00c6lfgifu, identified by the D recension of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in its 1035 entry as \u201c\u00fe\u00e6re Hamtunisca\u201d (the woman of Northampton); presumably their marriage was celebrated in 1013 or the beginning of 1014.34 Although the possibility remains that Cnut married \u00c6lfgifu on his return to England in 1015, or even in 1016, a political alliance with midland nobles seems to have been more pressing for him in the early part of the 1013\u20131016 campaign. Cnut\u2019s marriage to \u00c6lfgifu gave him a strong familial link to her powerful kindred.35 Cnut also made use of his father\u2019s base in Gainsbor- ough, Lincolnshire, in the aftermath of the recall of \u00c6thelred from Normandy in 1014: while most of the English nobility deserted him, an act for which their hostages, given in the surrenders of 1013, were mutilated, the people of \u201cLindesige\u201d (\u201cLind- sey,\u201d the Chronicle\u2019s use of the old kingdom\u2019s name for Lincolnshire) remained loyal.36 Although Cnut departed the south of England in 1014, returning there in the following year, the way in which he responded to the actions of Edmund Ironside and Earl Uhtred in 1016, even when his position in Wessex was looking more secure, shows that his interests lay in the north. We see him heading there in that year, an act which gave Edmund his opening to lead the resistance from London.37 30 Stafford, East Midlands in the Early Middle Ages, 124\u201325, 135\u201343; Stafford is at pains to point out that \u201cDanish\u201d identity was not a monolithic feature and was subject to manipulation; see also Innes, \u201cDanelaw Identities.\u201d 31 Stafford, Unification and Conquest, 65\u201367, esp. 65. 32 Plans for a coronation in York are suggested by Wilcox, \u201cWulfstan\u2019s Sermo Lupi as Political Performance.\u201d 33 For a discussion of the evidence, see Biddle and Kj\u00f8lbye-Biddle, \u201cRoyal Burials in Winches- ter,\u201d 234\u201335. 34 ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 65 (s.a. 1035); probably with good reason, there is no Chronicle entry recording the marriage to \u00c6lfgifu. 35 Bolton, \u201c\u00c6lfgifu of Northampton\u201d; see also Insley, \u201cPolitics, Conflict and Kinship,\u201d albeit Insley reads the marriage as dating to 1015\u00d71016. 36 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, 99 (s.a. 1014); (D), ed. Cubbin, 59 (s.a. 1014); (E), ed. Irvine, 71 (s.a. 1014); there is, to my knowledge, no specific study of the context of Gainsborough, but for its riverine significance, see Stafford, East Midlands in the Early Middle Ages, 13. For recent work on the strategic importance of Lincolnshire mints in the reign of \u00c6thelred, see Gareth Williams, \u201cMilitary and Non-Military Functions of the Burh,\u201d 155\u201356. 37 ASC (CDE), s.a. 1016. For a view of the strategy of Edmund Ironside in this period, see McDermott in the previous chapter, pp. 147\u201364.","Chapter 8 Cnut, King of the English, 1017\u20131019 177 It is difficult to determine precisely where Cnut spent his days after the death of Edmund on November 30, 1016, for although he may have been in Winchester for the assembly that led to the grant of land at New Minster in Easter 1019 (a crown-wearing?), Oxford is the only location we have for him in the period prior to 1019.38 Most of his other appearances are from after that year. The death of Earl Uhtred might be redated to 1018\u00d71019, following a sensible revision of the evidence by A. A. M. Duncan in 1976, which, on the face of it, might have implications for the presence of Cnut in Northumbria, where the earl was killed. It is likely, as Dun- can says, that Uhtred\u2019s death owed more to political circumstances after 1016 and that the Anglo-Norman De obsessione Dunelmi (On the Siege of Durham) is a useful source in that respect, even though its tale about Cnut\u2019s hand in it, with his troops hiding behind a curtain ready for Uhtred to meet his dramatic and treacherous end, does not seem credible evidence for personal intervention by Cnut in North- umbria in the years immediately after 1016.39 Once we look at the more reliable evidence for Cnut\u2019s presence, we see him in the south of England for much of his reign, most often in the Thames valley.40 Even if, as Barbara Yorke notes later in this volume, the role of Winchester is over- stated by historians,41 the broader significance of Wessex and the south of England in Cnut\u2019s worldview of the English kingdom still stands. This makes sense, given that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records Cnut\u2019s division of the kingdom into four, with Wessex going to Cnut himself: rather than taking from this that Cnut had as- sumed the powers of an ealdorman and that consequently his authority elsewhere was diminished, we might read this division as the de facto recognition that au- thority over England rested in the south of the kingdom. After all, the division of the kingdom at Olney (i.e., on the isle of Alney on the Severn) in October 1016 had made Edmund the first king of the West Saxons since the tenth century. The Chron- icle\u2019s claim that Cnut acceded \u201ceallon Angelcynnes ryce\u201d (\u201cto all the kingdom of the English people,\u201d my emphasis), while noting the different earls\u2019 areas of au- thority, is thus an indication that a division was acknowledged even while it was a statement of an overarching sense of political identity. As Jay Paul Gates has 38 See, however, Yorke later in this volume, pp. 209\u201334. 39 Uhtred\u2019s death, recorded in ASC (CDE), s.a. 1016, but not specifically attributed to that year. Durham sources are more circumspect about his survival past that point: Duncan, \u201cThe Battle of Carham, 1018\u201d; see also the assessment of the evidence in Woolf, From Pictland to Alba, 236\u201340. The narrative on Cnut\u2019s presence at Uhtred\u2019s death, De obsessione Dunelmi, is given in Morris, Marriage and Murder, 3. 40 Hill, Atlas of Anglo-Saxon England, 91. 41 Yorke in this volume; a more maximal reading may be found, in Roffey and Lavelle, \u201cWest Saxons and Danes,\u201d 17\u201325.","178 Ryan Lavelle recently observed, this was a shift toward a polity which was a kingdom in terms of geographical area, rather than in terms of a people \u201cof the English\u201d (i.e., of En- glish \u201cdescent\u201d): a subtle and important difference.42 Projections of Authority: Coronations and Title How was this political identity manifested in this early period? There are no char- ters which can be reliably dated to the first year of Cnut\u2019s reign, whether we count that as late 1016 or 1017, and we do not even have a contemporary record, let alone an account, of the coronation itself. There is some suggestion, if John of Worcester can be trusted on the matter, that Cnut\u2019s acceptance by the West Saxon nobles at Southampton in 1016, in the wake of the death of \u00c6thelred, was a coro- nation.43 Yet it is just as likely that this ceremony may have been more along the lines of the acclamation of Sveinn Forkbeard in 1013, or indeed that of Cnut after his father\u2019s death in 1014. It is reasonable to suppose that the late-twelfth-century dean of St. Paul\u2019s, Ralph de Diceto, was accurate in recording that Archbishop Lyf- ing of Canterbury presided over Cnut\u2019s coronation at London in 1017.44 A hint that a coronation had been performed in 1017 is provided in the legal text associated with the record of Cnut\u2019s assembly at Oxford in 1018, re- corded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in which \u201cDene 7 Engle wurdon samm\u00e6le to Eadgares lage\u201d (Danes and English were agreed according to Edgar\u2019s law).45 The legal text may record promises of coronation oaths in the manner of better- known royal coronation promises declared in charters issued by Kings Henry I in 1100 and Stephen in 1135.46 If this were indeed the case, with Archbishop 42 Gates, \u201cEalles Englalandes Cyningc\u201d; also noted in Beech, \u201cThe Naming of England.\u201d The clearest statement on the political importance of the notion of the Angel-cynn remains Wor- mald, in \u201cEngla Lond: Making of an Allegiance.\u201d 43 Lawson, Cnut: England\u2019s Viking King, 82, citing John of Worcester\u2019s Chronicle, s.a. 1016. 44 Historical Works of Ralph de Diceto, ed. Stubbs, II, 169 (Abbreviationes Chronicorum, s.a. 1017). See Lawson, \u201cArchbishop Wulfstan and the Homiletic Element,\u201d 157. 45 ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 63 (s.a. 1018). The Worcester Chronicle (D) is alone in saying this was according to Edgar\u2019s law. The adaptation of an Old Scandinavian samm\u00e6li for a sense of \u201cbeing in agreement\u201d may be instructive, although Pons-Sanz, in \u201cNorse-Derived Vocabulary,\u201d 283\u201384, notes that an earlier eleventh-century Kentish use of this term (in S 1455) may show that it is non-specific; see also my own comments on fri\u00f0mal and form\u00e6l in \u00c6thelred\u2019s 994 agreement with the Vikings, in Lavelle, Alfred\u2019s Wars, 329. I consider the significance of Ox- ford as a location below, on pp. 186\u201388. 46 EHD 1, 452; for Henry and Stephen, see EHD 2, 432\u20135; Kennedy, \u201cCnut\u2019s Law Code of 1018\u201d; see also Stafford, \u201cLaws of Cnut and Anglo-Saxon Royal Promises.\u201d"]