CHAP. VI. lived, and one will appear again in our history, to beco the source through which the old kingly blood of Wess: found its way into the veins of the later rulers of Engla and Scotland. Executions at the The Etheling Eadwig, whatever was his fate, clear Christmas did not die by any judicial sentence. But the Christm Gemót of Gemót of this year, held in London,' was accompanied 1017. the deaths of several men of high rank, some of whom s least, whatever may have been their guilt or innocene seem to have died in a more regular way, by the hand of the executioner. These were Ethelweard, the son of Ethelmar distinguished as the Great;2 Brihtric, the son of Elfheah of Devonshire, and Northman, the son of the Ealdorman Leofwine. This last name introduces us to a family which was to play a most important part in the times immediately before and immediately after the Norman Conquest. Of Leofwine personally we know nothing; his son Northman is said, on the most suspi p. 98. The Chronicles at this stage are silent on the matter, but the poem in the Worcester Chronicle under 1057 says that Cnut sent Eadward "on Ungerland to beswicane"- Sweden is not mentioned. Adam of Bremen (ii. 51) gives them another refuge; "in Ruzziam exsilio damnati." So Karamsin, Hist. de Russie, ii. 48. 1 So Florence; "in nativitate Domini, cum esset Lundoniæ." A different order of events might perhaps be inferred from the Chronicles; but Florence is clearly more careful in his arrangement in this place. 2 "Æðelmæres þæs greatan," say the Abingdon, Worcester, and Peterborough annalists. What sort of greatness is implied? This may be the Ethelweard who is said to have failed to slay Eadwig; but this Æthelweard and this Ethelmær must be distinguished from the real or supposed brothers of Eadric So Brihtric must be distinguished from the Brihtric of the year 1009. 3 He signs a great many charters, but I know of no recorded action of his A complete pedigree of the family, attached to one of the manuscripts of Florence, but which its contents show not to be earlier than the reign of John, will be found in the Monasticon, iii. 192, and it is drawn out in a tabular form by Palgrave, English Commonwealth, ii. ccxci. Leofwine is the son of Leofric, the son of Elfgar, the son of Elfgar, the son of Leofric, who is placed in the days of Æthelbald of Mercia (716-747. See above, P. 3). Our Leofwine is made contemporary with Ethelstan, Eadmund, EXECUTIONS. 457 ious of all authorities,1 to have been a special follower of CHAP. VI. Cadric. As the whole family were high in rank in Eadric's Carldom, and as the fate of Northman and that of Eadric re connected in our accounts, the statement is probable enough in itself. One thing is plain, that Northman's offence, whatever it was, was something wholly personal to himself and in no way extended to his family." This fact, together with the advancement of Godwine, should be carefully borne in mind. Whatever was the justice or injustice of these executions, they were at least no part of any deliberate plan for exterminating the English nobility, and substituting Danes in their place. We shall soon see that the policy of Cnut led him in an exactly opposite course. 3 Eadred, and Eadgar. Agêsilaos was the son of Archidamos, and Lewis 2 See below, p. 461. 3 Florence (1017) asserts their injustice, the victims died "sine culpâ." As Dr. Lappenberg (ii. 200) seems to think, on the strength of a passage in the Ramsey History, c. 84. If this be the necessary meaning of the Ramsey writer, his authority is very small on such a point, and the general course of Cnut's conduct looks quite the other way. CHAP. VI. of the sonsin-law of Æthelred. The new King however kept a careful eye on all w Of Treatment were in any way connected with the English royal fam The sons-in-law of Ethelred seem to have awakened suspicions of Cnut almost as strongly as his sons. daughters of Ethelred three were certainly married, Eadric, to Uhtred, and to an unknown Ethelstan.3 fourth is said to have been the wife of Ulfeytel, and :' have passed with his East-Anglian government to t Dane Thurkill. All these persons were gradually got of by death or banishment. Æthelstan and Ulfeytel hai had the good fortune to die in open battle. We hav already seen how easily Cnut was led to consent to the death of Uhtred, and we shall presently see Thurkill himself, to whom Cnut in a great measure owed his crow Eadric put driven into banishment.6 The remaining son-in-law of Ethelred, the infamous Eadric, met the reward of all his crimes in this same Christmas Gemót. So short a time had he enjoyed the dignity which he had retained or recovered by so many treasons. That he was put to death at this time is certain, but that is nearly all that can be said. The renown, or rather infamy, of his name drew special attention to his end, and the retributive justice which lighted on the traitor became a favourite subject romance. The immediate cause or pretext of his death Thurkill banished. 1021. to death. Christmas, 1017. 3 See above, p. 378. of 1 See above, p. 363. 2 See above, p 359. So Lappenberg (on the authority of Suhm) in his genealogical tree of the West-Saxon Kings. But the name of the wife of Ulfeytel is there called Wulfhild, while Eadgyth was the name of the wife of Eadric (Florence, 1009), and Thurkill's English wife was also an Eadgyth (Florence, 1021. Lappenberg, ii. 197, 207). Was it not the widow of Eadric, not the widow of Ulfcytel, whom Thurkill married? 5 See above, p. 416. 6 See below, p. 474. 7 The three elder Chronicles simply record that Eadric was put to death; the Canterbury annalist adds the place "on Lundene,” and ventures to guarantee the justice of the execution-it was done "swyde rihtlice." The date comes from Florence; "in nativitate Domini." 8 I reserve the consideration of the different versions of the tale for Appendix G. DEATH OF EADRIC. 459 his execu a hardly be ascertained; but the feelings of Cnut to- CHAP. VI. irds him may easily be guessed. Eadric, notwithstanding Motives for 1 his crimes, was an Englishman of the highest rank; in tion. e absence of available male heirs, his marriage made him, some sort, the nearest representative of the royal house; he very success of his repeated villanies shows that he ust, somehow or other, have obtained the lead of a coniderable party. In all these characters he was dangerous; Cnut must have felt that a man who had so often betrayed his former masters would have just as little scruple about >etraying him ;1 he could hardly avoid confirming him in his Earldom in the Assembly of the former winter, but he had doubtless already made up his mind to seize on the first opportunity to destroy him. We may believe that Cnut, as we are told in most versions of the story, gave himself out as the avenger of his adopted brother; but the removal of the arch-traitor was a step which prudence, as prudence was understood by Cnut at that stage of his reign, called for fully as much as justice. and influ The character and career of Eadric, like those of Ælfric, Character his predecessor in office and in crime,2 form one of the ence of standing puzzles of history. It is difficult to understand Eadric. the motives for such constant and repeated treasons on the part of one who had, solely by royal favour, risen from nothing to the highest rank in the state. It is equally difficult to understand by what sort of fascination he could have found the means either to work his treasons or to blind the eyes of those who suffered by them. That both his crimes and his influence have been much exaggerated is highly probable. It is likely enough that he has been made the scape-goat for many of the sins both of other So Florence; "Quia timebat insidiis ab eo aliquando circumveniri, sicut domini sui priores Ægelredus et Eadmundus frequenter sunt circumventi." It is worth notice that Florence here makes no charge against Eadric of any share in the death of Eadmund. 2 See above, pp. 307, 363. of treasons CHAP. VI. individuals and of the whole nation. A tendency of this sort to lay all blame upon some one man is not uncommon in history. Thus we have seen in our Norman history al the mischief that happened attributed, at one time to Arnulf of Flanders, and at another to Theobald of Chartres1 But exaggeration of this kind must have had some substantial ground to go upon. Without necessarily believing that Eadric personally wrought all the countless and inexplicable treasons which are laid to his charge, it is impossible to doubt that he knew how to exercise an extraordinary influence over men's minds, and that that Two classes influence was always exerted for evil. It may be observed ascribed to that the crimes attributed to him fall into two classes. Eadric. His treasons on the field of battle, at Sherstone and at Assandun, were wrought openly, in the sight of two armies, and, asserted as they are by contemporary writers, we canDifference not do otherwise than accept them. But there is another class of charges which do not rest on the same firm ground. Such are his supposed share in the deaths of Eadmund and Eadwig, his advice to destroy the children of Eadmund, and other cases where his counsel is said to have led to various crimes and mischiefs, or to have thwarted the accomplishment of wise and manly purposes. Some of these charges are not found in our best authorities, and, of those which are, some may well be merely the surmises of the time, going on the general principle that, whenever any mischief was done, Eadric must needs be the doer of it. The annalists could not well be mistaken as to Eadric's conduct on the field of Assandun; they might easily be mistaken as to any particular piece of advice said to have been given by him to Ethelred, to Eadmund, or to Cnut. In these cases their statements prove little more than the universal belief that Eadric was capable of every wickedness. But that universal belief, though it proves in the cre dibility of the two kinds of charges. 1 See above, pp. 239, 252, 260. |