Talk:Æthelbald of Mercia

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance). Middle Ages Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Æthelbald of Mercia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 25, 2018.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 19, 2007 Good article nominee Listed June 4, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Ethelbald was effectively first king of unified Br. See W S Churchill's History of the British People (whatever its exact title...) Trekphiler 11:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I really like your articles. take a look at this one.

http: //www.englandandenglishhistory.com/england_english_englishness/default.aspx

Troll

I've included the story of Ceolred dying in a fit, which per the Ceolred of Mercia page comes from St. Boniface. It needs a source citation, though, since another WP article can't be used as a source and the Ceolred article doesn't cite it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind and removed it. See the Ceolred article to re-add it; but it needs Boniface as a source. Mike Christie (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boniface has bad things to say about Ceolred, but Kirby thinks this is down to bias amongst his informants. There's a quote at the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England's entry on Ceolred here, under correspondance. Zaluckyj quotes a different excerpt: Ceolred was "...feasting in splendour amidst his companions [when] - as those who were present have testified - suddenly in his sin sent mad by a malign spirit...". (Zaluckyj, p.136, quoting Whitelock's EHD no. 177.) Eddi has nothing bad to say, only reporting that Ceolred had promised to make Wilfrid his spiritual director (VW, c. 64). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated link: Ceolred 1 at Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England -- Jheald (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, thanks for the pointers. I'm not familiar with these sources but will do some research; the "Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England" site I can reference directly, of course, but I'd like to cite the countervailing comment you attribute to Kirby, too. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can add those. I've been putting off Æthelbald for a while, hoping that I'd get a chance to read Worthington and Hill's Æthelbald and Offa, but no such luck. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting -- can you give me an ISBN? I just did a search for it and found their "Offa's Dyke" but not the book you mention. Mike Christie (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Hill & Margaret Worthington (eds.) Aethelbald and Offa : two eighth-century kings of Mercia (British Archaeological Reports, British series, no. 383). Oxford: Archaeopress, 2005.

ISBN 1-84171-687-1 Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

(unindent) OK, I added the note about the fit back, citing EHD. I don't have access to a copy so a page number is needed; I suppose I could cite Zaluckyj instead but EHD seems a better source. I'll try to put a to-do list together for this article before I finish with it, and that can go on the list. Thanks for the BAR reference. One day I'll get to the UT library and get to some of these. Mike Christie (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing this comment "The successful claimant to the throne of Wessex, Aethelheard, seems to have subsequently ruled subject to Mercian authority. This may indicate that his claim to the throne had been supported by Ethelbald." since I can't find a source for it. It's not in ASC; I have a vague memory that it's because Aethelheard is listed as a subregulus on a charter somewhere but the charters I found him on don't support that. I'm adding it to the to-do list to put back when sourced. I also can't find an assertion like this in any secondary sources.

1. Get the page number for the EHD citation for Ceolred's fit at the banquet.
2. Find a source for "The successful claimant to the throne of Wessex, Aethelheard, seems to have subsequently ruled subject to Mercian authority. This may indicate that his claim to the throne had been supported by Ethelbald."

1 is done (and the mysterious Ceolwald gets a mention now). On the second point, Kirby, p. 133, says "Among the West Saxons it may be that it was Aethelbald's support which enabled Aethelheard to defeat the aetheling Oswald, and that this established both Aethelheard and his brother, Cuthred, who subsequently succeeded Aethelheard in 739, as Aethelbald's dependants or at least obliged them to make territorial concessions." He then goes on to the occupation of Somerton, and the charters S.1410, S.1679, and S.1258 and says: "The impression these records give is that Aethelbald brought certain West Saxon territories directly under his own authority..." and so on. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help; I've incorporated some of this into the article.

Another question: I have just added a note about the titles Ethelbald had in his charters: "King of Britain", and "King of all the South English". I am pretty sure I've seen a comment somewhere to the effect that every charter that gives Ethelbald these grand titles comes from the Worcester scriptorium, and so may be giving a biased view. I can't find this anywhere -- I thought it was in Campbell's "The Anglo-Saxons", but it doesn't seem to be there. Does this ring a bell with anyone? Mike Christie (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby, Earliest English Kings, p. 130. He doesn't say biased exactly, rather "This spate of exalted titles for Aethelbald, which finds no echo elsewhere in texts from centres other than Worcester, could well be a purely local phenomenon in the mid-730s, peculiar to Worcester, with little direct bearing on the chronology of the process by which Aethelbald made himself master of the southern kingdoms." Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I finally found the reference in Campbell, but the quote from Kirby is clearer, so I put something in and cited from Kirby. Mike Christie (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These two sentences: "In 722, a Mercian defeat at the hands of the Welsh was recorded, probably against Ithel ap Morgan of Glywysing. In 740, in the north, Ethelbald took advantage of the absence of Eadberht in a campaign against the Picts to invade Northumbria and burn York." are unsourced. I think I may have a ref for Ethelbald attacking Northumbria, but not for Eadberht being away fighting the Picts at the time, nor for the burning of York. I have nothing on the 722 defeat. Angus, do you have anything here? (I've ordered a copy of Kirby, so with luck that will solve the problem in a couple of weeks.) Mike Christie (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I have from Campbell: "Annalistic references suggest that he attacked the Welsh, the Northumbrians and the West Saxons (several times), and that he may have been allied with King Angus of the Picts." Mike Christie (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Picts and Northumbrians there's a fair bit in

Oengus_I#Alt_Clut.2C_Northumbria.2C_and_Mercia and rather less in Eadberht_of_Northumbria#Neighbours. War with the Welsh, says Kirby (p. 133), rests on the Chronicle, Ms A, s.a. 743: "It may be that these [Cuthred] West Saxon kings were obliged to join the Mercian ruler on occasion at least on his military campaigns, as indeed earlier kings had assisted Penda and Wulfhere." And, indeed, as later kings may have aided Cenwulf against Eardwulf. Essentially, the alliance with the Picts has been chewed over since Frank Stenton was writing Anglo-Saxon England. What the current orthodoxy is, I have no idea. Woolf had the last word so far, and took a Stentonesque position: the alliance did not exists and the "evidence" is not more than a scribal error or corruption. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

1. One thing I do think is missing is a good map. There's a map of Mercia in Mercia, but I don't really like it because it uses modern English counties as the elements, which I think gives a misleading idea of precision in the boundaries. The earlier map used in Penda of Mercia is dated around 600 and is really a little early. I could create one using DMIS if necessary, though I'm not all that deft with graphics.
2. I'd also like an image of the crypt at Repton. There's a good picture in Swanton, and another in Campbell, but fair use doesn't apply to pictures of buildings that could be made available in free versions.
3. I haven't been able to find images of coins that are reliably of Ethelbald's reign. Sceat makes it sound as if there are none except possibly the U series, and that doesn't sound reliable enough to include.
4. I think the article should be moved to
   Aethelbald of Mercia
   , and appropriate redirects created. As far as I can tell from the references I'm using, that's much the most common spelling. The "Ethelbald" spelling is rare, and using "Æthelbald" may be technically correct but should not be the primary form, since few people will type that in. If this is agreed, then I will also change all spellings in the article to use "Aethelbald".

Any other comments or suggestions? I think this is close enough for GA now, but I think it needs a little more for FA. Thanks for any ideas. Mike Christie (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no artistic talent whatsoever and couldn't really help with a map, but I'll see if I can google up a C19th one from somewhere. There are images of the crypt on Flickr, but they are {{

cc-by-nc-sa}}, which would have to be fair use only. Alas! no pics of the rider that I saw. As for coins, the Fitzwilliam medieval corpus db starts with Offa. For the naming, I usually go with the ghastly ligatures, and redirect to those, but I have no problem with "Aethelbald". Dr Plunkett would be the man to speak to on this subject. He's an expert on the subject and I'm sure he'd be willing to offer suggestions. He's done a lot of marvellous East Anglian stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I found an 1841 print of the crypt on Gutenberg.org; that'll do. I'm not going to worry about the spelling for now; that's something that should probably be settled consistently across a whole set of articles, and it's more important (and more fun) to get more articles up to GA/FA first. I'm going to put this up for GA, and I'll drop Dr. Plunkett a note -- thanks for the suggestion, and for all the help. Mike Christie (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pasted in from suggestions left by Dr. Stephen Plunkett on my talk page:

1. 'Bretwalda'. I don't remember what the WP article on this title says, but in general the Chronicle use of the term is retrospective (Bede doesn't use the term) and may be part of a later (West Saxon) propagandist way of looking at their history, which might account for why AEthelbald and Offa were left out, despite being so important! In other words, they can justify making Bede's 'top rulers' into bretwaldas (whatever that really means), but they are not going to dignify the ruddy Mercians with such a title if they don't have to.
2. Maybe worth saying what a big dynastic crisis the end of Ceolred was: the end of the whole dynasty from Penda, so that they had to find a descendant of his brother Eowa, who died in the battle in which Oswald was slain. Therefore this whole business about Guthlac is important, because Ceolred was persecuting Ethelbald who, in turn, was probably aspiring to rule while Ceolred was still alive. Glance at my WP articles on
   Aelfwald of East Anglia
   . ceolred's widow was the great Werburgh, whose christian life was a key aspect of the reign of AEthelbald.
3. 'began a long period of mercian Domination' - some would say it had already been growing pretty much since Penda's time, and had reached considerable heights in the time of Wulfhere and Aethelred. And there are times in the 9th century when the reign of Wiglaf (after his recovery) looks pretty impressive too.
4. I don't think the big Clofesho of 746/7 or whenever was a response to Boniface's letter - I think it was at a time when the whole English church was looking to Boniface as leading a huge movement on the continent, and reforms in England were earnestly needed and being prompted through Boniface. Boniface's letter to Aelfwald of East Anglia is clearly in relation to two of the capitula of the Council, and he was writing to these rulers in advance of the Council trying to get them to support his reforms, precisely because he was worried about the path Ethelbald was following. But clearly the early to mid 8th century Mercian church (eg Peterborough (and it colonies), Breedon (Tatwine going to Canterbury), the painted book art of (say) Rome Gospels, Leningrad Gospels, Stockholm Codex Aureus, etc are showing developments which imply that patronage of the church was very strong in Mercia, and linked both to Northumbria and Canterbury. Boniface is being more political, and in his fiery letter to Ethelbald he doesn't really mean that Ethelbald is in danger of becoming a pagan or anything like that - at this stage Boniface is a Very elder statesman in Europe.
5. On Beornrad, glance at my WP thoughts on Beonna of East Anglia.
6. Would be good to quote the Biddle discussion of Repton sculpture and mausoleum, (if you haven't already, I forget).
7. I seem to remember that Ethelbald's regnal styles in his charters are important as evidence of his projection of the royal image.
8. Personally I think (see Aelfwald of East Anglia) that Ethelbald, although the senior ruler, made the Mercian ascendancy by having a completely friendly relation with East Anglia from the start, and therefore had all the East Anglian allies with him, i.e. he didn't dissipate Mercian energies in pointless hostility with East Anglia, he had a friendship policy through the Fen religious houses and so was able to concentrate on controlling the West Saxons (though he lost out to Cuthred) and the Northumbrians.

Work on the above points

1. Bretwaldaship -- I think this is done; I've found it hard to find sources that come out and say that the Chronicle has been regarded by some as West Saxon propaganda, but I think there's enough there now. The fact that the chronicler was West Saxon is not controversial, nor is Offa's dominance. I was going to mention Penda as an example of West Saxon bias, along with Aethelbald and Offa, but I left him out because Bede omits him too. Mike Christie (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Ceolred and the end of Penda's dynasty. Here's the relevant paragraph from the Ealdwulf article:

   The closing years of Ealdwulf's reign were coloured by the unsatisfactory rule of Ceolred, who depleted the monastic assets to support his style of kingship. At this time the Mercian royal hermit Saint Guthlac was living in the secluded fenland Isle of Crowland, north of Peterborough. His retreat became a place of refuge for a Mercian royal counter-claimant, Æthelbald, who appears to have received encouragement and protection there from the East Anglian nobility. However this development, extremely important in its outcome, had not fully unfolded when Ealdwulf died in 713, leaving his son Ælfwald as heir to the East Anglian kingdom.

   and here's the one from Aelfwald:

   Ceolred's appropriation of monastic assets created disaffection. His persecution of a distant cousin Æthelbald (grandson of Penda's brother Eowa) drove the man to take refuge deep in the Fen at Crowland, where Guthlac, another descendant of the Mercian royal house, lived as a hermit with a group of religious men. East Anglian influence was felt at Crowland, and when Guthlac died in 714 abbess Ecgburgh provided a stone coffin for his burial. Ceolred died in 716 (blaspheming and insane, according to his chroniclers), the posterity of Penda became extinct or disempowered, and AEthelbald emerged as ruler of Mercia. Soon afterwards he richly endowed the church at Crowland.

   I think this is now dealt with -- I cited Stenton for the note on Ceolred oppressing the monasteries, and mentioned the change of dynasty.
3. Fixed; I've referenced Penda, Wulfhere, etc. and I think this is now covered.
4. This is hard to expand upon without citable sources; I'll see what I can find. The idea that Clovesho and Gumley are responses to Boniface's letter appears in a couple of places so I'm leaving it in.
5. Interesting but I don't think I need to mention any more about Beornrad in this context -- he's only mentioned in passing here.
6. I don't know what the Biddle/Repton discussion is; will ask Steven about this.
7. I think this is now covered with the discussion of the Ismere Diploma and so on.
8. The point about East Anglian friendship would be good to include in the dominance section; needs to be sourced, presumably from one of Steven's articles. Mike Christie (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After having reviewed the article I've put it on hold per the following shortcomings (listed following the Good Article Criteria listing):

1. As for the first requirement (It is well written), the article has some problems with clarity. There are several instances in which new characters are introduced to the story without an explanation on who they are. For instance:

• In the intro: His long reign began a period of Mercian domination of England, which was continued by Offa, who reigned from 757 to 796. It would be better like this which was continued by Offa, his cousin and successor,

• Ethelbald came to the throne on the death of Ceolred. it would be better on the death of king Ceolred, his cousin.

• He was succeeded briefly by Beornrad, of whom little is known, did he have any relationship to Ethelbald?

• You get the idea... There are similar problems in the introduction of characters such as Alweo, Guthlac, Oswald, and Egbert.

The article needs an

infobox, the one in the Edward the Elder article might be a good guide on how to create one for this article. It might also be a good idea to add a Wikipedia:Persondata

template, allthough this is not a must.

I'll check back in seven days to see if the article has improved enough to warrant a promotion to GA status. Good luck, --Victor12 19:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor, I've started working on the copyediting changes, and have two questions so far. First, the new infobox includes a picture of the crypt, as that's the only picture I have that seems even vaguely appropriate. To make the infobox a reasonable size I've shrunk the picture and then reused it later in the article. Let me know if you think this is acceptable. Second, I think the right answer on the spellings is probably to move the article to "Aethelbald"; the "Ethelbald" spelling is now old-fashioned, and I don't think the spelling with the "Æ" ligature should be used as the primary one. However, I hate to move it while the GA is underway. Is it OK if I leave that till the GA is over? Then I can place a proposed-move template on the article and let others comment.

I'm still working on the copyediting and will leave you another note when done. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've seen your edits and they are certainly a step in the right direction. About the pics, IMHO you should not put an image twice in the same article. Also, image size should not be specified per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images. As for the page move, I'm of the same opinion as you, it can wait until after the GA nomination is over. Maybe you can put a footnote explaining why the different spellings. Greetings, --Victor12 01:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor, would you take a look and let me know what else needs to be done? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the article again and (after some very minor copyedits) I think it now complies with all GA criteria. Congratulations!!! For future improvement I would reccomend further refinement of the prose which is still somewhat difficult for a common reader to understand. Greetings, --Victor12 16:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed from

Hiya Mike, thanks for your message! I think there are a few papers by the Biddles floating around about Repton, and I am scratching around for my refs at present, but try:

• M Biddle and B Kjølbye-Biddle, 1985, 'The Repton Stone', in Anglo-Saxon England Vol 14 (1985), 233-292. (This may give pointers to other relevant publications as well.)

The claim that East Anglia (under AElfwald) and Mercia under AEthelbald were friendly, is based on the East Anglian patronage of Guthlac during Aethelbald's exile in Crowland (see Felix Life of Guthlac) and from the matriarchal prominence of Werburga as Mercian abbess and patroness, in whom the Kentish, East Anglian and Mercian dynastic lines and interests were united. As a daughter of Wulfhere and Eormenhild, granddaughter of Penda, Seaxburga and Eorconberht, great-granddaughter of Eadbald and Anna, and widow of the discredited Ceolred, her maternal side religious personal heredity is entirely Kentish and East Anglian, and it is likely that her father Wulfhere's conversion (and initial apprehension of Mercian power) came through his Kentish marriage, which came at or soon after his accession and provided the necessary southern alliances to reinforce his reign against the rivalry of Northumbria. Notice also the apparent extension of Medeshamstede patronage over the Middle Anglian and Mercian church, as a twin hub of religious hegemony together with East Anglian Ely, centred around the Fen. (Possibly Tatwine, who (probably at Repton) recommended Guthlac to go to Crowland in 699, was the same who later ruled Breedon, and rose in 731 to Canterbury? - as I suggested in 'The Mercian Perspective' in Sally Foster's St Andrews Sarcophagus volume, Dublin 1998.) The prosperity of Aelfwald's East Anglia, especially Gipeswic, the rising monasteries, and the development of the coinage, indicate that its substance was not dissipated in hostilities towards Mercia or suppressed by Mercian exploitation. Hence it was no doubt affiliated to Mercian superiority, but retained its dynasty at least down to Aelfwald's death (and probably right down to Edmund). I presume that if there is a connection between Beorna of East Anglia and Beornred of Mercia (identity or kinship), the last years of Aethelbald before his assassination may have been coloured by changing East Anglian policy. At that point it is hard to tell whether Beornred has represented a party hostile to Athelbald, perhaps prompting his assassination in order to seize power, or whether he may be an Athelbald partizan stepping in to try to hold off the ambition of Offa. In the latter case, it might be that the partition of East Anglia in 749 was an external policy of Aethelbald's: alternatively East Anglia may have been seized by the 'B' dynasts as a stronghold against him. Difficult to know, but it is clearly a departure from the apparent long peace of the period 713-749. If as Huntingdon or Malmesbury says (I forget which), the East Angles were with Aethelbald at the battle of Burford Bridge against Cuthred of Wessex in 752, they were his allies even after the death of Aelfwald. The most recent reference for this case being made is, I'm afraid, to me! e.g.:

• S.J. Plunkett, Suffolk in Anglo-Saxon Times (Tempus, Stroud 2005), esp. pp142-162.

I hope that is helpful. Best wishes and well done for your continuing efforts, Dr Steven Plunkett 08:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've ordered these references from my local library; the main one to look at seems to me to be the argument as to why East Anglian relations were so quiet. However, from the point of view of an article on Æthelbald himself, the research addresses the lack of conflict with East Anglia and asks why there should have been none -- i.e. it is asking about the absence of sources. For this reason I don't think it's necessary to address this before taking it to FAC. Conversely I won't rush to add this without getting Stephen's book in front of me to refer to, though I suppose it could be added from Stephen's material above, and reffed as he indicates. Mike Christie (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of that might be referenced to Kirby, p 112, where he says: "It is evident from The Life of Guthlac that a harmonious relationship prevailed for some time after Aethelbald became king between the Mercian king and Aelfwald...otherwise it would be difficult to explain the dedication of the Life of a Mercian saint to King Aelfwald." qp10qp 21:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now got a copy of Dr. Plunkett's book: the relevant sections are 142-143, where he discusses "East Anglian and Mercian politics in the Fen:, and a long paragraph on p. 147 where he returns to the same topic. After some thought I think I'm not going to add anything to the article based on this -- Plunkett doesn't directly draw the conclusions about friendly relations, though he does go into the underlying details to establish the connections. If another source is found that makes the overall assertion about Æthelbald's political approach to East Anglia and Lindsey, then Plunkett can be used to back it up. Mike Christie (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Biddles and the Repton stone: I've now found a ref for that in the Blackwell Encyclopedia and have added it and cited Blackwell. Mike Christie (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to use this section to capture ongoing research questions from the current FA discussion.

• The discussion of the 9C document saying Æthelbald slew the kinsman of a Mercian abbess is cited in Kirby from CS 535 and S 1782. CS 535 appears to be S 209, and is on anglo-saxons.net, as cited; the other charter is not there. In addition my Latin is not good enough for me to be sure what is being said in CS 535, though I don't see anything about Æthelbald there. I think this will require getting hold of a copy of S 1782 and a translation in order to properly describe the original sources.

I have added "stabbed—or smitten" from the quote Stenton gives, which is from CS 535, and I think the sentence is good now. (Stenton has the knack of just dropping enough detail in here and there to bring these documents to life and lift the prose.) I doubt there's much else to know about this, except that Stenton says Aethelbald gave the abbess land in compensation, a detail I don't think we need to mention. qp10qp 02:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Latin page too and I can't see the relevant bit of text either, though it's obviously connected, being about Burgred and donations. But this Google Books page seems to give all the details. Nothing we need to add, I'd say. qp10qp 20:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The note about Boniface authorizing Ecgberht to edit the letter as he saw fit should be expanded with reference to the original letter, if possible. According to Kirby this is letter 74 in Whitelock's "English Historical Documents".

Mike, I've found it in a book of Boniface's letters. The relevant passage is: "I sent a letter of exhortation and admonition to Ethelbald, king of Mercia, with the advice and consent of the bishops who are working with me. I ordered this letter to be shown to you for inspection so that you might correct whatever you found wrong in it and might flavour with the spice of your wisdom and strengthen by authority whatever was right."

The relevant part of Boniface's letter to Herefrith says: "We eight bishops, whose names are given below, meeting together, urgently request you, our dearest brother, to convey to Ethelbald, king of the Mercians, our letter of admonition, to read it to him with your explanations, and, in the same from and order in which we wrote and sent it to you, to call his attention to each point with your exhortations. For we have heard that in your fear of God you fear not the person of man and that at times the said king has been willing to give some little heed to your warnings."

At last it is clear to me: the reason Boniface has sent this letter to be checked by Ecgberht is that from so far away he cannot be sure that the information he has received about Aethelbald's misdeeds is correct: Ecgberht, Boniface's man on the ground, is to remove anything inaccurate before Herefrith reads it to Aethelbald. It's interesting that he tells Herefrith to read the letter exactly as he finds it, which makes me think that Ecgberth had the letter first; or perhaps when Boniface says "I ordered this letter to be shown to you", he means by Herefrith, so that Herefrith gave it to Ecgberht who gave it back to Herefrith. qp10qp 23:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, one thing I noticed from reading Boniface's long letter to Aethelbald is that he makes a big thing of Aethelbald not having taken a lawful wife, which is how he gets onto this business about lust, because to sleep with women when not married amounted to the crime of fornication. The letter is so lively that I think an extract from it would inject immediacy into the article: I'm going to pop and do some edits in a moment. Please revert me if you think I add anything inappropriate. qp10qp 23:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article doesn't mention what influence, if any, Æthelbald had over important church appointments outside Mercia, such as the archbishopric of Canterbury. I haven't found information on this but it's something to look for.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a line about Aethelbald’s influence over the archbishopric of Canterbury; here is the reference in full (from Kirby 113; are we looking at different editions?):

Yes, I have the 1992 edition -- I put a note in a recent edit summary to say I was changing the page number just to keep consistency on the edition cited throughout. Mike Christie (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's another one at note 21. By the way, have you noticed that there are refs to 1990, 1991 and 1992 editions? qp10qp 20:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dang. Thanks for pointing that out; I hadn't realized what a mish-mash it was of different versions. I think some of those are probably relics of Angus's involvement; I know he uses Kirby. Anyway, all are now fixed and it should be consistently cited to one version now; I've made it the one I've got, since most were cited to that version anyway, plus I could verify the page numbers that way. Mike Christie (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The election of Tatwine, a priest in the monastery of Breedon on the Hill in the territory of the Middle Angles, to be archbishop of Canterbury on the death of Beorhtwald in early 731, should perhaps be seen as an expression of Aethelbald’s influence, and likewise that of Nothelm, a priest of London, to Canterbury in 734–5, and of Cuthbert, probably the former bishop of Hereford, to Canterbury in 740."

I believe it would be unrealistic to think that this wasn't the way things were done in those days, both in England and on the continent. The church had a constant fight to gain independence from its secular protectors, but it obviously depended on them, too. When an archbishop of Canterbury was chosen whom Offa didn't like, he set up his own archbishopric at Lichfield, and if his line hadn't faded out so quickly, who knows, it might have lasted. But the church strengthens its control of appointments during times of secular weakness. There was always mutual intertwining: this Ecgberht of York chap, for example, was the king of Northumbria's brother.

qp10qp 02:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these. I will still keep an eye out for an affordable copy of EHD and will follow up on Boniface's letter if I get it. Next up, by the way, is

WP:GAC right now, and hope to bring to FAC shortly. I'm also working on Ceawlin of Wessex; and may go for all the bretwaldas, eventually. Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

"According to a later continuation of Bede's Ecclesiastical History" - The wording implies that it was not written by Bede, or at least is unclear - later to what. Can you clarify. Ceoil 01:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it was not written by Bede, though there is some suggestion that the first few entries may have been. I have added a ref for this. I've put the explanation in the footnote, rather than the body text; is this enough? Mike Christie (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed a part of a recent edit be Ceoil back: the version as it now stands is "Æthelbald had all the English south of the Humber under his overlordship". It had been "Æthelbald ruled over all of England south of the Humber". The difference between overlordship and ruling is, I think, important enough to preserve. The point that is intended to be made is that although each of the other kingdoms still had their own ruler, they were subject to Æthelbald's authority in some ways -- this is different to the implication of "ruled", which I think would naturally be interpreted as Æthelbald actually taking the kingship of these other kingdoms. The intent of the subsequent explanation of overlordship in that paragraph is to make this clear. If it doesn't do that, I'll see if I can tweak it to make it the differences more apparent. Mike Christie (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that; its a big danger in drive by editing; correct meaning can often be lost. Thanks for the oversight. Ceoil 02:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with a small dose of "original thought" on the talk page, so here are some ideas on two questtions that keep niggling away at me:

• Who did this Boniface think he was, writing to Aethelbald, Ecgberht (archbishop of York), and Cuthbert (archbishop of Canterbury), pretty much telling the three most important men in England what to do?

• What was the connection between developments in England and developments on the continent as far as the relationship between church and state was concerned?

Tentative thoughts:

John of Worcester in his synthesis of chronicles writes:

"AD 750 Pepin, by order of pope Zachary, was anointed emperor by Boniface, archbishop of Mainz, in consequence of which the bishop of Mainz is considerd as next in dignity to the pope."

Some partial inaccuracies there, of course, but John is using Marianus Scotus, who had been based at Mainz and so this addition to the ASC information is worth attention, I think. If indeed Boniface's status amounted to second to the pope and if he considered himself to be acting in the church hierarchy as primas Germaniae, the pope's substitute north of the alps, and interpreting that role to cover to Anglo-Saxon England too, then his letters to England make perfect sense. He was not busybodying, as might at first appear, but carrying out his designated task of running the northern church. At the moment, he pops up in the article without his role being explained.

As the church begins to involve itself in deposing and anointing temporal rulers, its power takes a vaulting leap, and earthly rulers suddenly need to take note. Perhaps this is one reason why Aethelbald appears to have played ball when Boniface told him to "Remember that you were made king and ruler over many not by your own merits but by the abounding grace of God". Perhaps he saw which way the wind was blowing.

I think Boniface wrote to York rather than Canterbury for assistance in bringing Aethelbald to heel because the renewed York archbishopric (its status had lapsed) was part of a restructuring of the church emanating from Boniface's circle on the continent. In Carolingian Connections: Anglo-Saxon England and Carolingian Francia, C. 750-870 (2003), Joanna Storey writes: "Was the renewal of the York pallium and equivalent developments in Francia a simple coincidence? The missions of Willibrord and Boniface can be seen as the ecclesiastical sword in an essentially political and military campaign by proto-royal Carolingian princes; so too the elevation of the brother of the Northumbrian king to archiepiscopal status had profound political ramifications in that kingdom....It is thus arguable that the re-establishment of York to metropolitan status should be seen within the broader context of developments in the Frankish church."

qp10qp 02:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting, but I'm a little out of my depth here. I have few other sources to turn to, but Fletcher's "Who's Who in Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England" does mention that it was at Boniface's prompting, "and with papal encouragement, that Carloman convened councils in 742, 743 and 744 which issued comprehensive decrees of reforming legislation designed to root out abuses in the Austrasian church". Boniface was on a mission in every sense of the word; Aethelbald was just one of his targets. However, I think we'd need more sources than John of Worcester on Boniface being the pope's second.

Fletcher gives a small bibliography for Boniface. The two that sound useful are Wallace-Hadrill, "The Frankish Church", which apparently has a chapter on Boniface; and Reuter, "The Greatest Englishman". The latter is not available on Google Books; the former is partly available--the relevant chapter is probably "The Making of the German Church".

I don't think I follow Storey's argument. Your sentence prior to the quote from her makes sense, but how can Boniface's mission, which appears to have been concocted from his ambition combined with papal authorization, be a project of Carolingian princes?

I'm also a bit nervous about the "vaulting leap": you pointed out, I think, that Boniface's power was always dependent on secular rulers, and that this was a recognized limitation. Fletcher comments that Boniface has to wait for Charles Martel to leave his kingdom to his three sons in order to make further progress in his reforms; Charles Martel was much less interested in ecclesiastical affairs than Carloman. I agree that as the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms become more thoroughly Christianized, a strong (or just headstrong) archbishop could wield influence via admonishments, but doesn't Bede bewail the fact that monasteries are falling away from their ideals, just a decade before Aethelbald's letter? So it's surely not the case that the English church's moral authority is increasing at this time. Boniface is actually writing to English archbishops, not to Aethelbald directly, presumably partly because it would be rude to bypass them in such a matter; but also perhaps because Boniface knows he has little leverage and he wants Ecgberht to help locate a fulcrum to use to move Aethelbald.

Just some thoughts. I should say, as I think I have before, that this field of study is entirely new to me, so please forgive obvious oversights and mistaken conclusions -- I don't know this material very well.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unlike my previous comments, these weren't suggestions for specific improvements to the article, but just musings for the talk page. (Who knows how long people will be working on this article?). Yes, we would need more than John of Worcester on this (though he's very good), but the fact that he has got this from Marianus, who was connected to Mainz, makes me believe that he's correct. And when I looked up the archbishopric of Mainz, I found that its status as the substitute for the papacy north of the alps can be sourced. It makes Boniface's interventions in England seem logical; to me, I must say, Boniface comes over as if he feels he very much does have leverage (he met popes several times and wrote to them).

Carolingian history hinges upon the partnership between pope and emperor: it was the birth of the Holy Roman Empire no less—thereafter it became very important for rulers to have papal backing: Offa actually meets papal legates in England and gets their backing to found his own archbishopric at Lichfield. So what I'm trying to track is the origins of this movement. Certainly one can see a precursor in Boniface's anointing of Pepin as king (after all, Pepin was not a Merovingian) and the church-endorsed deposition of Childeric III in 751; to me that really is a vaulting leap in church power: the church now becomes the spiritual sword of the secular rulers it chooses to anoint. Storey starts her book at 750. How close were the Franks to the Anglo-Saxons? There were lots of Anglo-Saxons involved in the Frankish church, and Boniface talked of his "fellow Saxons" in Germany. I think that Christendom was remarkably integrated at this time: it was an age of scholarship, and people like Bede, Boniface, and Ecgberht thought nothing of writing to each other regularly in Latin, borrowing books, or whatever. Priests would move to posts far from their native lands. Pilgrims were forever backwards and forwards to Rome, including royals like Ine and clerics like Ecgberht.

Anyway, it's not important: just tossing some of this into the mix. qp10qp 05:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to sound negative -- I was just curious about some of the reasoning. I hadn't known about Childeric III's deposition -- that's an interesting story, and does support your argument. I'll keep reading, and if I get more substantive things to say I'll post here again. As it is I am under-equipped for proper analysis, as opposed to synthesizing secondary sources. Mike Christie (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Anglo-Saxon history is all about hypotheses, I think. And me too, I'm just another amateur playing at historians; but that's that's part of the fun of this hobby.

Writing articles is certainly a question of synthesizing secondary sources, but I find that one sometimes has to analyse for oneself a bit in order to understand what these secondary sources mean and to synthesize them in the most helpful way for the readers. Often the problem is that secondary historians write their carefully judged sentences in the context of their whole book, or of scholarship in the field, whereas we have only a few thousand words at our disposal and sometimes have to help the readers with the context of the various statements or ideas that we borrow. qp10qp 15:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I temporarily have the St. Andrew's Sarcophagus book in my possession, so here's the reference if it's needed later for the assertion that the two Tatwines are the same person:

"The Mercian Perspective", Steven J. Plunkett, in {{cite book |last= Foster|first=Sally|title= The St Andrews Sarcophagus: A Pictish Masterpiece and Its International Connections|pages=207|year= 1998|publisher= Four Courts Press|isbn=1-85182-415-4}}

The quote is: "Breedon was sufficiently important in 731 for its abbot, Tatwine (author of a book of riddles), to be appointed Archbishop of Canterbury (HE V, 2); he may have been the same Tatwine who first recommended Crowland to Guthlac."

-- Mike Christie (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Æthelbald of Mercia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090713202532/http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/sdk13/histpaint/ashistpaint.html to http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/sdk13/histpaint/ashistpaint.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]