Reign of Æthelbald. New phase of the Danish struggle under Æthelberht.
§ 62. Of Æthelbald’s short reign of two and a half years nothing is recorded in the Chronicle; Asser’s statement[423] that his government was ‘unbridled,’ I regard as a mere flourish, based on his alleged incestuous marriage; while Henry of Huntingdon’s pathetic sigh that ‘at his death England realised how much she had lost[424],’ I take to be an equally valuable piece of rhetoric on the other side. With Æthelberht’s reign of rather over five years the Danish struggle[425] enters on a new and more serious phase. Under him, as we have seen[426], Winchester was taken in the year 860, and though the assailants were ultimately driven off, a severe blow must have been struck at the prestige of Wessex by the capture of her capital[427]. The wintering of the Danes in Thanet in 865, marks, according to Steenstrup[428], the beginning of the deliberate and systematic attempt to conquer England. The recent incorporation of Kent with Wessex did not prevent the Kentishmen from making a separate agreement with the foe. The next year, 866, the Danes wintered in East Anglia, and there too a separate peace was made, to be followed, four years later, by the definite conquest of that land, and the death of its martyr-king, St. Edmund. In 867 the never-ending civil discords of Northumbria opened that country also to the invaders; and there too a separate peace was made, and a puppet king, Egbert, was set up by the Danes[429] in the district north of the Tyne, just as they set up Ceolwulf, a few years later, in Mercia. Mercia’s turn was to come the following year.
Accession of Æthelred; Alfred’s public life begins.
But meanwhile, in 866, Æthelred had succeeded his brother Æthelberht on the throne of Wessex, and it is under Æthelred that the public life of Alfred begins. A late authority[430] states that Æthelred was Alfred’s favourite brother. The statement is probably a mere inference from the record of their co-operation contained in the Chronicle and Asser; but in itself it is likely enough.
In 868 the Danes invaded Mercia and wintered at Nottingham. Burgred, who with his Witan had in 853 invoked Æthelwulf’s help against the Welsh, and who that same year had married Æthelwulf’s only daughter Ealhswith, now once more with his Witan invoked the aid of Æthelred and Alfred against this newer and much more dangerous foe. The brothers obeyed the call, and marched to Nottingham, but they did not venture to attack the Danish lines, and the Mercians made peace with the invaders.
Title of secundarius given to Alfred by Asser. Significance of the title. Alfred’s will.
§ 63. It will have been noticed that the Mercian application for West Saxon help is said to have been made to Æthelred and Alfred jointly[431]; and it is significant that it is just before this Mercian campaign that Asser first applies to Alfred the title secundarius[432] alluded to in an earlier section. This title is unique in English history. Apart from Asser and writers who copy Asser, the only instances of the use of the word given by Ducange are as the title of a monastic officer. And this to some extent confirms the suggestion already made[433], that the word is to be traced to Celtic influence; for in Irish secnab, literally ‘second abbot,’ is one of the regular titles of the prior of a monastery. And I look on ‘secundarius’ as the equivalent of the Irish ‘tanist,’ the person appointed or elected during the lifetime of the chief as his future successor[434]; and it is to be remarked that the Irish word tanaise or tanaiste, anglicised ‘tanist,’ actually means ‘secundus.’ The institution of tanistry existed among the Welsh[435], though I have not come across any name for it so closely corresponding with the meaning of ‘secundarius’ as the Irish tanaiste. What then I take to be the significance of the title as applied to Alfred is this: that some time between Æthelred’s accession in 866 and 868 a definite agreement was come to, by which Alfred was recognised as Æthelred’s successor, to the exclusion, for the present at any rate, of the latter’s children (if at this time he had any); Alfred in return perhaps definitely abandoning any claim to Kent. This theory derives some confirmation from the very similar arrangement which was come to about this time in regard to the private landed property belonging to the brothers. In the preamble to Alfred’s will it is stated that Æthelwulf left certain property to be held in common by the three brothers, Æthelbald, Æthelred, and Alfred, the ultimate survivor to have the whole. On the death of Æthelbald, ‘Æthelred and I,’ says Alfred, ‘gave our share in trust to our kinsman[436], King Æthelberht, on condition that he restored it to us [i.e. at his death] in the same state as he received it. And he did so, not only in respect of that property which he obtained by our concurrence, but also in respect of that which he himself acquired.’ When Æthelred succeeded, Alfred suggested in the Witan a final division of the property. Æthelred pointed out the difficulty of division, and promised that, if Alfred would withdraw his proposal, he (Æthelred) would leave him not only the whole of the joint property, but also that acquired by himself separately. To this Alfred agreed. The next clause recites how certain modifications were made at a later time, because the Danish troubles had brought home to the brothers that, under the original agreement, the children of the one who died first might be left without any provision.
This will refers to private property only; not to the Crown.
§ 64. It is to be observed in the first place that this will, and the provisions of Æthelwulf’s will therein recited, have to do solely with the private property of the family; there is not a word about the royal succession. It is only in the Latin version that this is mentioned; and that the Latin is not the original, is proved by the fact that it is full of the most obvious mistranslations from the Saxon. Indeed, I am not sure that the introduction of the royal succession is not the result of a mistranslation[437]. Secondly, the inclusion of Æthelbald is rather against the story of his rebellion; while on the other hand the omission of Æthelberht is to be accounted for on the supposition that he had been provided for in other clauses of the will, not here recited; for Asser distinctly says[438] that Æthelwulf divided his private property between his sons and his daughter. However, notwithstanding the exclusion of Æthelberht from this particular portion of the inheritance, Æthelred and Alfred made it over to him, on condition that at his death they should receive, not only it, but also his separate property; in other words, they made much the same agreement as was ultimately made between Æthelred and Alfred.
But analogous arrangements were probably made as to the succession. These explain the title secundarius.