CNUT BESIEGES LONDON. 421 besieges 1016. rival King, having received the homage of the Witan at CHAP. V. Southampton, continued his voyage towards London. He Cnut halted at Greenwich, and prepared to form the siege of London; the city. The course of the ships up the river was checked May 7, by the bridge-a wooden forerunner, no doubt, of that London Bridge which lasted down to our own times, and which was no doubt made the most of as part of the defences of the city. But Cnut dug a deep ditch to the south of the river, so that the ships evaded the obstacle, and sailed round to the west side of the bridge.1 He then dug another ditch round that part of the city which was not washed by the Thames, so that London was again hemmed in on every side. But every attempt on the walls was again baffled by the valour of the citizens, and at last Cnut found it more to his interest to check the progress of his rival in the West than to go on with an undertaking which seemed utterly hopeless. He raised the siege, and He raises the siege. marched after Eadmund. The English King was now puts off the adhesion of Wessex to Eadmund till after the battle of Sherstone. 1 The first ditch is recorded in the Chronicles, which say expressly; "Hi da dulfon âne mycle díc on suð healfe." William of Malmesbury, though he places the work later, after the battle of Sherstone, speaks of the other ditch which surrounded the city, reaching no doubt from the river to the river again; "fossâ etiam urbem, quà fluvio Tamensi non alluitur, foris totam cinxerat." That these are not two descriptions of the same ditch appears from the account in Florence, which takes in both; "in australi parte Tamensis magnam scrobem foderunt, et naves suas in occidentalem plagam pontis traxerunt; dein urbem altâ latâque fossâ et obsidione cingentes," &c. &c. I therefore, with Lappenberg (ii. 188), understand the story as I have told it in the text; the phrase "traxerunt" (so in the Chronicles "drogon") seems to mean that the ships were towed along the new-made canal. 2 It is hard to reconcile the authentic narrative of the Chronicles and of Florence with the story in Thietmar (vii. 28); and yet that story, manifestly inaccurate in many things, supplies some hints which are not to be despised. According to this version, Harold, Cnut, and "Thurgut" be sieged London in July, 1016, with 340 ships, each manned by eighty men. The city was defended by Queen Emma, with her two sons, Ethelstan and Eadmund-Ethelred's first family are constantly mistaken by foreign CHAP. V. collecting troops on the borders of the three shires e Somerset, Wilts, and Dorset. The armies met at a pur near the confines of all three, but just within the bo of Somersetshire, on the edge of the high ground coven by the forest of Selwood. The place is spoken of a the Pens, a Celtic name describing the lofty position d'i the ground, and which is appropriately found in the immediate neighbourhood of considerable vestiges of p Teutonic antiquity. Here, on a spot which perhaps had writers for children of Emma-together with two Bishops and other chick 1 "Pen Pits" and a neighbouring encampment called "Orchard Castle" supply good primæval studies. The latter is not unlike a miniature model of the more renowned hill of Senlac. BATTLE OF PEN SELWOOD. at Pen 423 victory of battle, at Sherstone been the scene of earlier West-Saxon victories over a CHAP. V. videly different enemy,1 did Eadmund, small as had been First battle, he time which he had had to collect forces, venture to Selwood; give battle to his rival. He put his trust in God; he Eadmund. boldly attacked the enemy, and he defeated him. Soon after Midsummer, having collected a larger army, Ead- Second mund again engaged the enemy in another border district, at Sherstone in Wiltshire, just on the marches of July1016); victory Wessex and Mercia.2 Of this battle fuller details have doubtful. been preserved. The eastern shires of Wessex were in the possession of Cnut, so that the men of Hampshire and part of Wiltshire3 fought on the Danish side. With the Danes also were, not only the traitor Eadric, but at least two other English Ealdormen, Elfmær, surnamed Darling, and Elfgar the son of Meaw. With Eadmund were the men of Devon, Dorset, and part of Wilts-those of Somersetshire are not mentioned, but they can hardly fail to have been on the English side. At any rate, while 1 The scene of Eadmund's battle "æt Peonnan wið Gillingaham" (Chron.), "in loco qui Peonnum vocatur, juxta Gillingaham" (Flor.), is undoubtedly Pen Selwood. I am far from being so certain whether the spot "æt Peonnum" (Chron. 658), where Cenwealh defeated the Welsh, is the same, or another of the Pens in the same county. The word Pen (head) is a specimen of the Celtic names which still survive in the local nomenclature of this Teutonized, but not purely Teutonic, district. 2 I see no reason to doubt that Sceorstan is Sherstone. Mr. Thorpe in his note to his edition of Florence, objects that Sherstone is not, as Florence says, "in Hwicciâ." But Florence also places the battle of Pen "in Dorsetaniâ," which Pen Selwood is not, though Gillingham is. But both places are so near the confines of their respective shires that military operations may well in both cases have extended beyond the border. 3 So I infer from Florence, who first counts the Wiltshire men among the followers of Cnut, and then, in the speech which he puts into the mouth of Eadric, implies that some at least of them were on the side of Eadınund. "Elmar Dyrling," " Ælmarus Dilectus." Florence alone adds “Algarus filius Meawes," and implies, still more distinctly than the Chronicles, that Ælfmær and Elfgar, as well as Eadric, were bound to Eadmund by some special tie-" qui ei auxilio esse debuerant." CHAP. V. the pure Saxons of Hampshire were arrayed on the si Cnut, the army of Eadmund must have largely consis of men of Welsh descent. The King placed his be troops no doubt mainly his own comitatus-in fre and the inferior part of his army in the rear. He extre them in a speech setting forth the motives obvious on s an occasion, and led them to the place of action. T battle began; the close combat was still carried on, as Maldon, with the sword. King Eadmund fought in th front rank, doing the duty alike of a general and of a prin soldier 3 The two hosts fought for a whole day, with any material advantage on either side. The next day the fight began again; the English had now a decided a vantage, when a new act of treachery on the part Eadric for a while threw their ranks into disorder. Smiting off the head of a man whose features were much like those of the English King, he held it up, calling on the host of Eadmund to flee. The English wavered, 1 Fl. Wig. "Optimum quemque in primam aciem subducit, cæterum exercitum in subsidiis locat." We must remember these tactics when come to the great fight of Senlac. 2 "Lanceis et gladiis pugna geritur." See above, p. 300. 3 "Strenui militis et boni imperatoris officia simul exsequebatur" (so Il. I. 179, ἀμφότερον βασιλεύς τ ̓ ἀγαθός κρατερός τ' αἰχμητής) says Florence, whi grows eloquent on Eadmund's exploits. This praise must have been com mon to every general of those days who deserved to be called a general at all: yet it is often recorded to the special honour of particular commanders, as we shall find it in a very marked way of both Harold and William. he is This incident, not mentioned in the Chronicles, is given by Florence, who is followed by William of Malmesbury. Henry of Huntingdon trans fers it to the last fight at Assandun, and leaves out the striking off the other man's head. (The man so killed is called Osmær in Florence; only "quidam rusticus" in William of Malmesbury.) Henry gives the speech of Eadric in English, "Flet, Engle, flet, Engle; ded is Edmund." In Florence this is expanded into "Vos Dorsetenses, Domnani, Wil tonienses, amisso capite, præcipites fugite, en domini vestri caput, Eadmundi Basilci, hic teneo manibus; cedite quantocius." The use of the word Basileus is remarkable; I do not remember to have ever seen it used else where in ordinary narrative or speech. BATTLE OF SHERSTONE. 425 some were on the point of flight, when Eadmund, CHAP. v. e William at Senlac,1 tore off his helmet, showed him f alive to his army, hurled a spear at Eadric, but unkily missed the traitor, and slew another soldier who Ls near him. The English then took heart again; they tacked the Danes with still greater vigour, and kept › the battle till twilight, when the two hosts again parated. Neither side had gained any decided success; either host, it would seem, kept possession of the place slaughter. But, if neither side could claim the formal onours of victory, the practical advantage was clearly n the side of the English. For in the night Cnut Cnut again besieges arched stealthily away from his camp, returned to his London. hips, and again began the siege of London.2 Eadmund hen crossed into Wessex to gather fresh troops; and now is faithless brother-in-law Eadric came to him, as to his Eadmund natural lord, made his peace with him, and swore oaths with of future fidelity. Eadmund, unconquered by the arms Eadric. of Cnut, was not proof against the kind of warfare in which Eadric was so skilful. The hero had the weakness again to admit the traitor to his favour and confidence. At the head of his new troops, Eadmund 4 1 This incident is given only by William of Malmesbury. I trust it is not borrowed from the exploit of the Conqueror. 2 That Cnut was present in person at Sherstone is clear from Florence. The Knytlinga Saga too (c. 10) makes him present, and gives some details of an encounter between the two Kings in the thick of the battle. But the details must be legendary, as Eadmund is represented, contrary to universal English practice, as fighting on horseback. Cnut is also called Eadmund's step-father, as if Emma had not only been the mother of Eadmund, but had been already married to Cnut. The Encomiast (p. 14) makes Thurkill fight the battle, which with him is a complete Danish victory, in Cnut's absence. Earl Eric meanwhile ravages a great part of England, but Cnut, looking on the country as his own ("Rex parcens patriæ"), bids him desist. Of the earlier siege in May this writer seems to know nothing; William of Malmesbury also confounds the two. 3 Fl. Wig. "Ut naturalem dominum [no doubt cyne-hláford] requisivit illum." Fl. Wig. "Exercitu vice tertiâ congregato." The armies seem always reconciled |