All error is prolific in its offspring—the stigma of darkness which has been passed upon the period that elapsed between the fourth and the tenth centuries has caused them if not actually to be shunned, at least to be lightly esteemed in the course of study; and the useful lessons to be acquired from the conduct of men in all but a state of nature, have been neglected for the sake of those to be deduced from society as it has conventionally existed in a highly civilized state. It is not here intended to be denied but that much may be learned by this method of procedure; yet is it unhesitatingly advanced as a necessary axiom in polity, that the state of nature should be first regarded, and the different improvements upon, or at least alterations from, that state afterwards compared, for the purpose of introducing a still higher degree of amelioration. In no condition can the natural propensities of man be learned so readily as in a natural condition; and the more civilization has increased in any country, so much the more difficult will it be to lay down a Code of Laws which shall have the effect of correcting the natural evils and vicious propensities of the natives of the clime.
It might, perhaps, at first sight, appear that these remarks are not peculiarly applicable to the subject of the present Essay; but this is by no means the case. The object of History is to make the experience of past ages subservient to the use of the present; and the object of Education to enable the existing generation to take advantage of the experience so afforded. But if that portion of History most rich in traits of nature, most prolific in change, most useful in developing the workings of unsophisticated mind, be neglected, it were absurd to imagine that the present age could derive the benefit such period affords from other sources, which are undeniably less adequate to bestow it.
Circumscribed, however, as a brief composition of such a nature as the present must necessarily be, it is not perhaps advisable to enlarge upon a point of opinion that might admit of controversy. It may possibly be deemed sufficient to bear out, at least partially, the position laid down, to direct attention to the state of England at the period of its History preceding the accession of Offa to the crown of Mercia, and then trace briefly his mingled career of glory and of crime.
The question is not perhaps at the present day of easy solution, whether the Jutes[1] under Hengist and Horsa came to Britain by invitation from the natives, or whether their settlement in this country arose from accidental circumstances: considering the numerical insignificance of the expedition the latter is most probable. Certain, however, it is, that their establishment in Kent and the Isle of Wight led to subsequent descents upon the coast both by Saxons and Angles, the former of whom established themselves between A. D. 449 and 527 in the south and south east of the country; while the latter, between A. D. 547 and 586, became located in the northern and midland districts. It was about the last-named date that Mercia was formed into an independent state by Crida, comprising in its full extent what are now the counties of Chester, Derby, Nottingham, and Lincoln (North Mercians), Leicester (Middle Angles), Rutland, Northampton, Huntingdon, Beds, Hertford, Bucks, Oxon, Gloucester, Warwick, Worcester, Hereford, Salop, and Stafford (South Mercians). To these extensive domains,[2]—extensive, that is, compared with the other kingdoms of the Saxon Octarchy,[3]—Offa, the subject of the present Essay, succeeded in A. D. 755, upon the nomination of the last king, Ethelbald, who perished at Seggeswold in support of his throne against the powerful rebel Bernred.[4]
[1] The Jutes, Angles, and Saxons were Germanic tribes. The first of these were from Jutland, or the Cimbric Chersonesus, in Denmark. The Angles were a tribe of the Saxon Confederacy occupying Anglen in the south-east part of the Duchy of Sleswick in the south of Denmark.
The Saxons were at first only a simple state, though the name was afterwards applied to a confederacy of nations. Like all the Teutoni, or Germans, they were of oriental origin. They were as far westward as the Elbe in the days of Ptolemy (A. D. 90), and were, therefore, in all probability among the first Germanic tribes that visited Europe. Their situation between the Elbe and the Eyder, in the south of Denmark, seems to indicate that they moved among the foremost columns of the vast Teutonic emigration. When first settled on the Elbe they were an inconsiderable people, but in succeeding ages increased in power and renown. About A. D. 240, they united with the Francs (the Free people) to oppose the progress of the Romans towards the north. By this league and other means the Saxon influence was increased till they possessed the vast extent of country embraced by the Elbe, the Sala, and the Rhine, in addition to their ancient territory from the Elbe to the Eyder. After many of the Saxons had migrated to Britain, the parent stock on the Continent had the name of Old Saxons.—Preface to Bosworth’s Anglo-Saxon Dictionary.
[2] “Dominabatur Rex Offa Magnus in viginti tribus provinciis quas Angli Shiras appellant.” Norfolk and Suffolk, Essex and Middlesex are given in addition to the above by the anonymous biographer of Offa, whose sketch is appended to Watts’s edition of Matt. Paris. (Cambridge appears to be omitted.)
Asser, “de Ælfredi rebus gestis,” bears this testimony to Offa’s power, “Fuit in Mercia moderno tempore quidam strenuus atque universis circa se regibus et regionibus finitimis formidolosus rex, nomine Offa, qui vallum magnum inter Britaniam atque Merciam de mari usque ad mare facere imperavit.”—Camden’s edition, p. 3.
[3] “This state of Britain has been denominated, with great impropriety, the Saxon Heptarchy. When all the kingdoms were settled they formed an Octarchy.”—Hist. of the Anglo-Saxons, Turner, b. 2, ch. 4.
The eight kingdoms were the following, viz.:—