1015–1035.

On the death of Sweyn, his son Canute was proclaimed by the Danes. But this was the signal for the revolt of the Anglo-Saxons against the Danish yoke, and for the restoration of Ethelred. That rash and vicious prince was accordingly invited from the court of his brother-in-law, Richard duke of Normandy, on the condition of his governing better in future. What excited his hope, and that of his people, was the abrupt departure of Canute for Denmark. Harald, brother of the latter, who was invested with the administration, was aiming at the sovereignty of that kingdom; and prudence demanded that he should not suffer the loss of his hereditary realm, when he must evidently have again to fight for England. Released by the death of Harald from all apprehension in that quarter, he returned, with all the forces he could raise, to the English coast. Lord of Denmark, of a considerable portion of Norway[[131]], of several English counties, and of a fine army in that kingdom, he thought himself equal to any enterprise. What most favoured his views on England was the detestation in which Ethelred was held. His labour would have been easy, except for the valour of Edmund Ironside, who, but for the treason which ruled his father’s councils, and for that father’s utter worthlessness, would have resisted with success. Leaving to the historians of England the task of detailing the battles and negotiations which followed, we shall only observe that on Ethelred’s death (1016), Edmund was acknowledged by London and some counties; and that both parties being tired of the destructive warfare, agreed to a compromise—the counties north of the Thames being ceded to the Dane, those south of the Thames to the Saxon; and that on Edmund’s assassination (probably at Canute’s instigation) the Danish monarch was acknowledged by the whole kingdom. The two children of Edmund, indeed, remained; and, if report be true, the conqueror endeavoured to remove them by violence. But the Swedish prince to whom they were confided, refused to be made the instrument of his purposes, and sent them for greater safety to the court of the Hungarian king. In this relation there is evidently much romance. We have no proof that the Swedish prince of this period was the friend, or even the ally, of Canute. Probably the children were sent by their own friends to a place of security.

|1016 to 1028.|

The English administration of Canute must be sought in the histories of that kingdom. In Denmark he endeavoured to give to Christianity a predominancy which it had not yet attained. On his accession, full half of the Danes were pagans. To reclaim them, churches were built, and Anglo-Saxon missionaries appointed. This latter measure was hateful to them; and it was not agreeable to his Christian subjects, who wished the dignities of the church for themselves. Both were dissatisfied with his almost continued absence in England. Availing himself of this universal feeling, Ulfo the jarl, as we have before related[[132]], placed Harda-Canute, an infant son of the king, on the Danish throne. We have related, too, the issue of this rash step—the resignation of the boy, and the murder of Ulfo by the royal order. From this time there was continued tranquillity in both Denmark and England. Canute, indeed, was too powerful and too vindictive to be resisted with impunity. The acquisition of a third kingdom, which he conquered in 1028[[133]], surrounded his throne with a splendour that no Saxon or Danish prince had before possessed.

|1029 to 1035.|

That Canute was sullied by many crimes is evident, even, from his most partial historians. He put to death many, without the forms of law, either because he would punish their past, or avert their future, hostility. After his accession to the English throne he acted with great cruelty to many Anglo-Saxon nobles, and with perfidy to more. Yet he had great qualities. He must have been a good ruler, or he would not have dismissed his Danish followers, with the exception of about 3000. That he placed Danes and English on a footing of equality; that he administered justice with strict impartiality; that he improved the laws no less than the administration; that his yoke was felt to be tolerable by the English and the Norwegians, no less than by his hereditary subjects, are historical truths. “In fact, he was one of the best princes that ever swayed the English sceptre. If in his earlier days he was ferocious, after his establishment on the English throne he was humanised by Christianity. Of his zeal for religion, no less than for the temporal welfare of his people, we have evidence enough in his acts. There was an air of barbaric grandeur about the monarch, not to be found in any other sovereign of the times.”[[134]] Lord of three great kingdoms as he was, we must look for his true elevation to his own mind; and (a rare phenomenon) his moral qualities improved as he advanced in years. Few are the instances, whether in history or in common life, of men so completely reclaimed from evil to good. Much of this reformation has been ascribed by Roman catholic historians to his pilgrimage to Rome. They would be more logical if they called this pilgrimage the effect of the reformation. The state of his mind, his motives, his principles, are well described in the remarkable letter which he wrote from the eternal city, and which exhibits his character in a truer light than the comments of any historian.[[135]]

This monarch was liberal to his followers, as well as to the church. How, considering the splendid retinue which generally accompanied him, the magnificent presents which he made, the churches and monasteries which he founded and endowed, he could still be surnamed the Rich, is not easy to be conceived. His prudence was doubtless great; but his moderation is the virtue on which his biographers dwell with most satisfaction. There may be, and there probably is, no truth in the well-known anecdote of his rebuking his flatterers on the sea-coast. But another, which displays him in a light equally striking, is less known. Many years before his pilgrimage he drew up a code of laws, and was one of the first to violate them by killing, in a fit of anger, aggravated perhaps by intoxication, one of his servants. His good sense told him that this violation was a bad example for his ferocious nobles; and he resolved that his punishment should be signal. Convoking his judges, he appeared before them in the garb of a prisoner, accused himself of homicide, and awaited their decision. The penalty, according to the Germanic jurisprudence, which governed the greater part of Europe, was forty silver marks for one in the condition of the victim.[[136]] But the slavish administrators of the law deemed that in publicly confessing his crime, he had made sufficient recompence. Seeing their fear of him, he condemned himself to pay 360 silver marks, or nine times the amount of the legal compensation. Of this large fine half went to the kindred of the victim, half to the crown; but the king would not touch his portion, which was distributed to the poor.

In his last testament, and near three years before his death, this monarch divided his states between his sons. To Harda-Canute, whom he had invested with the government of Denmark, he left England also, because that prince was his offspring by Emma, the widow of Ethelred II. To Sweyn, who, since the death of St. Olaf (1030–1035), governed Norway, he bequeathed that kingdom. Whether any provision was made for Harald Harefoot, the eldest of his sons, is not very clear; but Harald taking advantage of his brother’s residence in Denmark, usurped the English crown. He could not expect, and he probably did not wish, that all three should rest on the same brow. Partition was the mania of the age.

HARDA-CANUTE.

1035–1042.