CHAP. V. amount of money which, as a necessary consequence of any treaty with Danes, was to be paid to the Danish fleet. They also swore oaths of friendship and brotherhood, and, like the heroes of Homer, they exchanged arms in token of mutual good will. The terms of the treaty, indeed the fact of Cnut's consenting to any treaty at all, show how formidable the power of Eadmund must still have seemed. The Imperial dignity remained to the English King, and he retained the immediate dominion of all England south of the Thames, together with EastAnglia, Essex, and London. Cnut took the remainder, the larger portion of the Kingdom. As compared with the division between Ælfred and Guthrum, the dominions of Eadmund were larger in one direction and smaller in another. Eadmund gained Essex and East-Anglia, which, in the earlier division, fell to the lot of the Danes, while he lost the portion of Mercia which was retained—or, more strictly, acquired-by Elfred. We may suspect that each prince, in case of failure of competent heirs,

5

6

1 Chron. "And þæt gyld setton wið þone here." So Florence, “Tributo quod classicæ manui penderetur statuto." In the Encomium, Cnut makes the division of the Kingdom and a seemingly perpetual payment the two preliminaries of the treaty. "Sed tamen vectigal etiam suæ partis vester Rex, quicumque ille fuerit, exercitui dabit meo. Hoc enim illi debeo, ideoque aliter pactum non laudo." This reads like a permanent tribute, which is very unlikely. I understand the words of the Chronicles of a single payment, such as we have so often heard of before.

2 As Glaukos and Diomêdês, Il. vi. 230 et seqq.

vii. 303.

Hektor and Aias,

3 "Armis et vestibus mutatis," says Florence, but, if the tradition as to the personal stature of the two Kings be correct, a judgement of Cyrus would have been presently needed to restore the clothes to their former owners.

The blank in Florence (see Thorpe's note) seems to be rightly filled up with the words of Roger of Wendover (i. 459), "ut corona totius regni Regi remaneat Eadmundo."

5 The Chronicles simply say, "And feng Eadmund cyng to Westsexan and Cnut to Myrcan," or, as in the Worcester Chronicle, "to þam norð dæle." Florence adds Essex, East-Anglia, and London to the portion of Eadmund. Henry of Huntingdon seems to assign London to Cnut.

See above, p. 48.

DIVISION OF THE KINGDOM.

437

was to succeed to the dominions of the other. It is CHAP. V. hardly possible that a permanent separation of the two parts of the Kingdom was seriously intended. Such a division could not have lasted longer than the joint lives of the two reconciled competitors, and it would probably have been annulled at no distant time by the first quarrel between them.2

England had thus once more for a moment, as in the days of Eadwig and Eadgar, two Kings. But her two Kings were now not hostile kinsmen, but reconciled enemies. After the conference at Olney, the newly made brothers parted. Cnut's army returned to their ships, which had doubtless remained in the Thames near London. The citizens, beneath whose walls the power of Cnut and his father had been so often shattered, now made peace with the Danish host. As usual, money was paid to The Danes them, and they were allowed to winter as friends within London. the unconquered city.

winter in

But meanwhile a sudden event set aside all the late Death of Eadmund engagements and made Cnut master of the whole realm. Ironside, On Saint Andrew's day King Eadmund Ironside died in

1 It was afterwards professed, as we shall presently see, that Cnut was to succeed Eadmund to the exclusion of his brothers and children. Considering the terms of the treaty (which Eadmund is said to have dictated"Eadmundo dictante," says Roger of Wendover) and the distinct superiority reserved to the English King, it seems only natural to infer that Eadmund was also to succeed Cnut. Such an agreement, if confirmed by the Witan, would be good in law, like the will of Ethelwulf (see above, p. 118); it would be in fact an election before the vacancy. Eadmund at this time had two infant children, who would naturally be shut out like other minors. Cnut was childless. It was not till the next year that he married Emma; and it was only about this time that, according to Saxo (p. 192), he took his mistress or Danish wife, Ælfwyn or Ælfgifu, the mother of Harold and Swend. The great object of any such mutual heirship was to exclude the brothers of the two Kings, especially those of Eadmund.

2 See the extract from the Encomium on the next page.

November

30, 1016.

London. The manner of his death is uncertain. Possibly the overwhelming labours of the last seven months may have worn out the strength even of one whose vigorous frame had won him his distinctive surname. The personal exertions of Eadmund must in truth have been greater than those of any other man in the two armies. Besides actual marching and fighting, there was the going to and fro after each battle to gather fresh troops. This labour must have pressed more severely on Eadmund than on any one else, far more severely than on Cnut, who had his army always ready at hand. It is therefore quite possible in itself that the death of Eadmund was natural,' and such a belief is in no way contradicted by our best Suspicions authorities. But, according to a report which obtained against Eadric; extensive belief, he died by the hand, or at least by the machinations, of Eadric. The traitor, or an instrument of his, slew the King and brother whom he had so often betrayed, and that by a peculiarly base and treacherous form of assassination.2 That Cnut himself had a hand

against Cnut.

1 Neither the Chronicles nor Florence mention the mode of Eadmund's death; Florence indeed seems, in a rather marked way, to exclude any imputation on Eadric. He describes later crimes of Eadric, and again refers to his earlier treasons, but he says not a word to connect him with the death of Eadmund. The Encomiast (p. 20) piously holds that God, out of His care for the English Kingdom, took Eadmund away. “Deus, memor suæ antiquæ doctrinæ [a somewhat anthropomorphic way of talking], scilicet, omne regnum in seipsum divisum diu permanere non posse, non longa post tempore Ædmundum eduxit è corpore, Anglorum misertus imperii; ne fortè, si uterque superviveret, neuter regnaret securè, et regnum diatim adnihilaretur renovatâ contentione. . . . Cujus rei gratiâ eum Deus jusserit obire, mox deinde patuit, quia universa regio illicò Cnutonem sibi Regem elegit."

2 William of Malmesbury thus describes the deed; "Ejus [Edrici] consilio ferreum uncum, ad naturæ requisita sedenti, in locis posterioribus adegisse." He however mentions it only as a rumour, and his rumour charges two chamberlains of Eadmund's with the actual murder. In Henry of Huntingdon, Roger of Wendover, and Brompton (X Scriptt. 906), instead of the chamberlains we find a son of Eadric made the actual slayer. This is doubtless intended to increase the horror by making Eadmund die

DEATH AND BURIAL OF EADMUND.

439

in the deed is an obvious surmise, and one which his CHAP. V. conduct immediately afterwards certainly does not belie. But no English authority hints at any such suspicion; the only writers who attribute the murder to Cnut, or even imply that he was ever accused of the crime, are to be found among the Danish King's own countrymen.1 But, whether the death of Eadmund was natural or violent, whether Cnut was or was not the instigator of the murder, if murder there was, he at least reaped all the advantage of the opportune end of his former rival and now sworn brother. The uninterrupted succession of the West-Saxon Kings, of the English Emperors of Britain, had now come to an end. The remains of the last, and one of the noblest, of that great line were carried to the common sanctuary of Briton and Englishman, and the body of Eadmund Ironside was laid by that of his grandfather Eadgar in the great minster of Glastonbury. In Eadmund's later times, through all the reconstructions of that won- Glaston

by the hand of his own nephew; but a son of Eadric by Eadgyth would still have been a mere child. (See above, p. 363.) In Knighton (X Scriptt. 2317) Eadric does the deed with his own hand. Examples of the same sort of death will be found in Lambert of Herzfeld in the years 1068 and 1076 (pp. 74 and 221 of the lesser Pertz), and a whole German army is said to have been destroyed in nearly the same way, when the Emperor Henry the Fifth invaded Poland in 1109. Dlugossi Hist. Pol. lib. iv. col. 378 (ed. Lips. 1711). Bromton and Knighton have also an alternative story of a mechanical device by which Eadric caused the King's death. According to Adam of Bremen (ii. 51), who makes him the brother of Ethelred, Eadmund was poisoned; "in gratiam victoris veneno sublatus est." All this shows that the manner of Eadmund's death is utterly uncertain. He died unexpectedly and, for Cnut, opportunely; suspicion, true or false, arose, and all manner of tales were bruited abroad. This is as much as we can safely say. As to the place of his death the Chronicles are silent; Florence says London; Henry of Huntingdon places it at Oxford, which must be wrong, Oxford being in Cnut's dominions.

1 The Knytlinga Saga, c. 16 (p. 178) directly accuses Cnut of employing "Heidrek Strjona," Eadmund's foster-father, to destroy him. Saxo (p. 193) speaks of it only as a rumour; "Memorant alii Edvardum clandestino Canuti imperio occisum." Snorre (c. 24. Laing, ii. 21) attributes the murder to Eadric, without mention of Cnut.

tomb at

bury.

CHAP. V. derful pile, the memory of the hero of Sherstone an Assandun still lived. Till men arose in whose eyes 1. history, and religion were alike worthless, he held a worthy place among a galaxy of royal tombs which Wachester or Westminster could hardly surpass.1 Behind the high altar, in his own chapel as a canonized sain rested the body of Eadgar the Peaceful. Before the altar lay the supposed remains of the legendary Arthur and his still more legendary Queen. North and south slept two champions of England, alike in name and in glory. On the north side lay Eadmund the Magnificent, one of the brother heroes of Brunanburh, the conqueror of Scot and Cumbrian and Northman, the deliverer of English cities from the heathen yoke. To the south lay his namesake and descendant, as glorious in defeat as in victory, the more than equal rival of the mighty Cnut, the man who raised England from the lowest depth of degradation, the guardian whose heart and arm never failed her, even if his ear lent too easy credence to the counsels of the traitor.2

On the Glastonbury tombs, see Willis, Architectural History of Glastonbury, p. 33. The original burying-place of Eadmund was before the high altar. (Will. Malms. de Ant. Glast. Eccl. ap. Gale, p. 306.) His tomb must have been removed on the Invention of Arthur in the time of Henry the Second.

2 "De bellis vero Regis Edmundi, et de fortitudine ejus, nonne hæc scripta sunt in historiis veterum cum laude summâ ?" H. Hunt. M. H. B. 755 D.

Such a reign as Eadmund's was not likely to be very fertile in documents. Mr. Kemble's collection contains one charter (Cod. Dipl. iii. 369) of "Eadmundus Edeling Rex," granting lands "æt Pegecyrcan" (Peakirk in Northamptonshire) to the new minster at Winchester. Its style, distinctly less turgid than that of most Latin documents of the kind, may be characteristic either of the man or of the circumstances of the time. The point of time when Eadmund was most likely to be exercising acts of sovereignty in Northamptonshire would be in the autumn of 1016, between the battles of Otford and Assandun, when he was drawing troops from Lindesey and other distant parts of the Kingdom.