Megan Arnott
ENGL: 6760
Prof. Jana Schulman
Friday, December 7, 2012
1066
has been called the ‘linchpin year” in English history.[1]
For historians, the Norman Conquest has been used to divide English history
into a ‘before’ and ‘after.’[2]
Taking a back seat to the main arenas of the Conquest was the earlier events of
1066, which comprised the Norwegian Invasion of England.[3]
Historiographically speaking, the events at Stamford Bridge are always
mentioned as a prelude to the Conquest because it is significant that Harold
Godwinson, last king of the Anglo-Saxons, fought two pitched battles on either
side of the country in less than a month, and that the English at York fought
two battles against the Norwegians in September, cutting down their military
capabilities before the Normens arrived in October.
The
Norwegians, under king Haraldr Harðráði., and their English allies, under the
exiled earl Tostig Godwinson, Harold’s brother, raided the countryside before the
two battles around the city of York. They won the battle at Fulford Gate, but
they lost the one at Stamford Bridge five days later. Kelly De Vries, writing
exclusively about the Norwegian invasion of England in 1066, lists three
categories of sources for the invasion, “those which were written in England
close to the time of the events which they discuss; those written (or, in the
case of the Bayeux Tapestry, embroidered) in England or Normandy after the
conquest of William the Conqueror but before the turn of the twelfth century;
and those written in England or Normandy during the early part of the twelfth
century by historically astute writers compiling their histories from other earlier
sources and eye-witnesses.”[4]
There are only two sources in the first category: the Vita Ædwardi regis and the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle. [5] Of
these sources, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
represents an interesting English genre of historical documentation. Apart from
the Irish Annals and an early Russian chronicle, and those are again of a
slightly different genre, at this time there are no comparable vernacular
sources that record history.[6]
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives its
readers an English - in language and perspective - take on the events of 1066,
differing from the point of view given in the Scandinavian, Norman and later
Anglo-Norman narratives. The goal of
this paper is to understand how the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle portrays the Norwegian Invasion of 1066 and how they characterize
the Norwegians, particularly the figure of Haraldr Harðráði.[7]
The text that we call the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is not one text,
but seven separate manuscripts and two fragments, each representing an
individual document in their own right.[8]
The origins of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
reside in the Easter Tables that clergy used to mark the passage of time. These
reports are terse, and are often begun with ‘Here, in this year.’[9]
Even though they are short and somewhat bland in nature, these references may
have triggered a whole host of references or memories for their Anglo-Saxon
audiences.[10]
Around 890 what would become the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle was compiled using Easter Tables and supplemented with material
from other, often Latin sources like Bede’s chronological summary in his Ecclesiastical History.[11]
It is thought that it was compiled not by king Alfred, but possibly by someone
in his court who was interested in promoting national identity in the face of
Viking raids.[12]
There was a surge of Anglo-Saxon literature during this time period, as it was
felt that Latin was in decay, and education was one of the courtly concerns.[13]
An Alfredian Chronicle was compiled and distributed to many different
political/religious and learning centres, just as Alfred’s translation of the Cura Pastoralis was.[14]
The seven manuscripts containing the Chronicle, up until the entry for 890, are
all drawing on similar stock. However, no year in the entire Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is exactly the
same across all versions, including up until the year 890.[15]
After 890 the relationship between the texts becomes even more interesting and certainly
hard to trace. The entries in the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle become their own prose genre, whose main function is still to
mark the year, but which become more original and often more detailed.[16]
Kevin Crossley, characterizing the entries in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, has noted that part of the conventions of
this genre are special attention to wars, and an interest in what Crossley
considers the ‘superstitious’ attention paid to portents and signs.[17]
And while there are many indicators that suggest many entries were added after
the date they represent, the entries are at least nominally contemporary after
890, which has partly explained their appeal for historians trying to
reconstruct this period in English history.[18]
The seven manuscripts have been named /A,
A (which is also sometimes called G or W), B, C, D, E, and F.[19]
Charles Plummer’s account of the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle identifies /A, C, D and E as Chronicles in their own right, with
B, A and F as derivative of the others.[20]
Manuscript /A is of interest because it is clear that after 890 the entries
were recorded one at a time for each year. The other six manuscripts change
hands mid-way through entries, suggesting a different kind of textual
transmission.[21]
The entries for 1066 embody all the
genre conventions of Chronicle entries. There are portents, and political moves
that mark the year, as well as three key battles. The Battle of Hastings tends
to be the battle that is most remembered, but this emphasis was created by the
outcome not by the events as they unfolded. We cannot tell if the sources are
directly contemporary, or when exactly they were written down, but again they
are considered to be some of the most contemporary sources. In Chronicle C,
within the description of Harold Godwinson’s preparations for the Norman
Conquest, it says “eallswa his syððan aeode,” showing that the chronicler
writes after the event.[22]
Conversely, in manuscript A there is a mention of 1066 which gives equal space
to the Norman Conquest as to the burning of Christ’s Church in Canterbury: “her
com Willelm gewann Ængla land. Her on ðison geare barn Cristes cyrce.”[23]
It is less clear that this was written after the events described, because of
the fact that it doesn’t obviously use outside textual sources like Chronicle C
does, nor does it use those phrases which specifically say it was written
later. In addition the brevity of it means that it could have been written as
events were unfolding. Because \A’s entries were written one at a time A seems
even more contemporary to the events than C, though C is also thought to be
nominally contemporary.[24]
And there are different emphases on the three
battles depending on which Chronicle you are reading. By focusing on the
battles that the Norwegians fought in, namely the first two battles (the Battle
of Fulford Gate and the Battle of Stamford Bridge) as opposed to the Battle of
Hastings, the Chronicle gives you three overlapping but vastly different
narratives for the events as they unfold. Chronicle C, which provides the
greatest amount of detail, is cut off due to a mangling of the manuscript, and
so covers the Battle of Fulford Gate and Stamford Bridge in great detail, but
does not touch on the Norman Conquest at all, save for the levy Harold had in
response to what he had heard (from credible sources) about William of Normandy
gathering an army.[25]
So Chronicles C, D and E deal with the events of the Norwegian Invasion in
depth. Chronicle B cuts off at 977, and so doesn’t reach the year 1066.[26]
F is a bilingual version of E, written in Old English and Latin, marking the
full circle of Latin sources, informing an Old English text, transitioning back
to Latin.[27] Therefore,
in the genre of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
there are three versions of the events of 1066.
The Norwegian Invasion in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the start
of the year is flexible. Bede said that the practice of starting the year at
Christmas was falling into disuse in his day, but this still seems to be the
case in a lot of the Chronicle, including for the year 1066.[28]
However, in other Chronicle years the year begins like ours, a.k.a. like the
Roman civil calendar on January the 1st.[29]
In other entries the year begins with the Annunciation on March the 25th,
such as the entry for year 1044.[30]
Chronicle C and D, open the year 1066 following the exact same tradition or
text, save for some spelling variation: “on þissum[31]
geare com Harold cyng[32]
of Eoforwic to Westmynstre to þam Eastran þe wæron æfter þam middanwintre[33]
þe se cyng[34]
forðferde, wæron þa Eastran on þone dæg[35]
.xvi. kalendas Mai.”[36]
The events follow the mid winter celebration, or Christmas as the acknowledged
bench mark. In Chronicle E this is even clearer because it starts off the year
with mention of a church consecrated on December 28:
Millesimo.lxvi. On
þissum geare man halgode þet mynster æt Westmynstre on Cilda mæssedæg, se cyng
Easward forðferde on twelfta mæsseæfan, hine mann bebyrgede on twelftan
mæssedæg innan þære niwa halgodre circean on Westmynstre, Harold eorl feng to
Englalandes cynerice swa swa se cyng hit him geuðe, eac men hine þærto gecuron,
wæs gebletsod to cynge on twelftan mæssedæg.[37]
In our modern calendar the consecration of the Church at
Westminster would fall in 1065, but not in the reckoning of this Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
Even though it doesn’t mention the
Norwegian Invasion, Chronicle A mentions the portent in the sky. The presence
of such conventions, depending on the genre, can make us question the veracity
of the text. Certainly mentioning portents often draws our disbelief and caused
Crossley to call the Anglo-Saxons superstitious.[38]
In this case, history has vindicated the mention of a comet in the sky in 1066,
and it doesn’t stretch our credulity because the implications of the comet are
implied, not stated explicitly. Not only is the comet mentioned in other
narratives, the timing would have coincided with Haley’s Comet.[39]
It is mentioned in A, and C and D, though in CD it is again an exact repetition
of the text, drawing from exactly the same example with very few spelling
variations:
Þa wearð geond eall
Englaland swylc tacen on heofenum gesewen swylce nan mann[40]
ær ne geseh.[41]
Sume men cwædon[42]
þæt hyt[43]
cometa se steorra wære, þone sume men hatað þone fexedan[44]
steorran, he æteowde ærest on þone æfen Letania Mairoa, þæt ys .viii. idus[45]
Mai. Swa scean[46]
ealle þa .vii.[47]
niht.[48]
C also says it was “viii. idus Mai” (May 8) and D says
viii. kalendas Mai, (24 April) that the comet was first seen, but these are
minor variations. E does not mention the portent, however the account in E is
much shorter in general, though not as short as A.
According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the first threat to Harold’s kingdom
consisted of attacks from his brother Tostig Godwinson, exiled earl of York, who
was raiding in the south of England. The most thorough account of Tostig’s activities
occurs in Chronicle C. The former earl landed on the Isle of Wight and raided
up to Sandwich. Chronicle D does not make explicit mention of raids, but says
that Tostig came to the Isle of Wight and received money and supplies there. In
Chronicle C when Tostig learns that his brother Harold is on his way to
Sandwich he leaves, capturing men from the port, and attacks the area along the
Humber, especially at Lindsey. Not much is said about what may have happened
then, whether it was a battle, or simply a retreat, but Chronicle C says that
Earl Eadwin and Morkere, who had taken over from Tostig as earl, drove him and
his men out. At this point Chronicle D and E (not C and D as was the case up
until now) use the exact same wording to state that “þa wile[49]
com Tostig eorl into Humbran mid sixtigum[50]
scipum, Eadwine eorl com mid lanferde[51]
adraf[52]
hine ut, þa butsacarlas[53]
hine forsocan.”[54] Chronicle
C says that it is as many men as he can muster, whereas the tradition that D
and E refer to are saying that originally Tostig had sixty ships to attack
England with. Historians have made much out of the number of ships mentioned in
Chronicles D and E, often using them to recreate numbers for the Battle of
Fulford Gate and the Battle of Stamford Bridge.[55]
The sequence of events in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has Tostig
attacking England while Harold Godwinson was building an army .But all three
versions agree that the threat is Harold is worried about is not coming from
Tostig. In Chronicle C there is a logic gap: when king Harold hears about his
brother Tostig in Sandwich (something only C mentions) his response is to
gather an army to meet the threat from the south. In fact Tostig himself has to
get out of Sandwich, not necessarily because Harold is coming for him, though
this could be inferred, but because he doesn’t want to run into him and
Sandwich is where Harold has chosen to muster his troops. D likewise, creates
flow by mentioning how Harold is Tostig’s brother, but talks about Harold’s
preparations for the impending invasion from the south: “Harold cyng, his
broþor, gegædrade swa micelne sciphere eac landhere swa nan cyng her on lande
ær ne dyde, for þam þe him wæs gecyðd þæt Wyllelm Bastard wolde hider ðis land
gewinnen, eallswa hit syððan aeode.”[56]
E is even pithier in its mention of Harold’s preparations: “þy ilcan geare þe
he cyng wæs, he for ut mid sciphere togeanes Willelme.”[57]
C talks about waiting for an invasion, but in the end they waited too long, and
they couldn’t feed the troops – they simply couldn’t keep them there. C refers
to the impending tragedy; “þeh hit æt þam ende naht ne forstode.”[58]
Chronicle C refers to ships that Harold sailed into London from the Isle of
Wight, after having to disband his men. Most of the ships were lost. E also
refers to his naval force, but never actually mentions the Isle of Wight or the
loss. However, Chronicle E gives historical weight to the tradition detailed in
Chronicle C by mentioning this naval force, even without details, and without
proof that they are necessarily referring to the same tradition.
Chronicles D and E again draw on the
exact same tradition to describe how Tostig’s force went from sixty ships to
twelve, implying that they were lost somewhere between when he sailed into the
Humber and when he met up with Haraldr of Norway in Scotland. By implication
they were lost at the battle with earl Eadwin at Lindsey, but this is not
explicit. Chronicles D and E also draw from a tradition where now Tostig
becomes Haraldr Harðráði’s man. Other traditions have Tostig as an instigator
of the Norwegian invasion, inviting Haraldr to come to England and claim
inheritance from Knútr, but here that is not the case. It is the case, however,
in Chronicle C. In Chronicle C there is no mention of Haraldr being in
Scotland, just Tostig. Instead the two meet up at the Tyne to begin raiding: “Tostig
eorl him com to mid eallum þam þe he begiten hæfde eallswa hy ær gesprecen
hæfdon.[59]
In Chronicle C the two have met before and planned to meet up for the invasion.
And Tostig’s force is painted in a much better light. He has all the forces
that he can muster, instead of having been reduced to twelve ships.
Chronicles
D and E are drawing on the same tradition again for the description of the
Battle at Fulford Gate, however, as opposed to the passages above, the wording
has started to differ. Haraldr and Tostig fight with earls Eadwin and Morkere
at York and win. At first the two accounts are still basically the same. This
is the account in D: “hi foron þa begen into Humbran, oð þæt hi common to
Eoforwic.”[60]
However, at this point, while the meaning is retained, the wording changes: “heom
þær wið fuhton Eadwine eorl Morkere eorl, his broðor, ac þa Normen ahton sige.
Man cyðde þa Harolde, Engla cynge, þæt þis wæs þus gefaren, þis gefeoht wæs on
Uigilia sancti Mathei.”[61]
Compare this to the account in Chronicle E: “hi bægen foran into Hunbran oð þet
hi coman to Eoferwic, heom wið feaht Morkere eorl Eadwine eorl, se norrena cyng
ahte siges geweald.”[62]
Chronicles D and C also agree on the date, September 20th, the vigil
of St. Matthew’s day, for the battle. This was twelve days after, according to
Chronicle C, the army gathered by Harold Godwinson at Sandwich had to be
dismissed. Chronicle C, as per usual, gives us a lot more detail about the
battle beyond what we learn in D and E, which is only that the Norwegians won.
Instead, Chronicle C states: “þa gegaderode Eadwine eorl Morkere eorll of heora
eorldome swa mycel werod swa hi begitan mihton, wið þone here gefuhton, mycel
wæl geslogon, þær wæs þæs Engliscan folces mycel ofslagen adrenct, on fleam
bedfiren Normen ahton wælstowe gewald.”[63]
Chronicle C also mentions the terms of the surrender, indicating that waiting
for hostages was one of the reasons Haraldr and Tostig would wait around York
after the battle: “þa æfter þam gefeohte for Harold cyninge of Norwegan Tostig
eorl into Eoforwic mid swa miclum folce swa heom þa geþuhte, him on gislade of
þæreburh eac to metsunge fylste, swa þanon to scipe foran to fullan friðe
gespræcon, þæt hig ealle mid him suð faran woldon, þis land gegan.”[64]
Chronicle C describes how as soon as
earl Tostig and Haraldr land near York, Harold marches night and day, as
quickly as he can, just as soon as he can get his men together. Makes sense, if
he is going to have enough time to reassemble a force and march with them to
York for September the 25th, the day of the Battle of Stamford. After
the battle took place (on a Wednesday says Chronicle C), by Sunday Harold had
come with all of his forces to Tadcaster and was marching for York on Monday:
“Đa amang þissan com Harold Engla cyninge mid ealre his fyrde on ðone Sunnandæg
to Tada, 7 þær his lið fylcade, 7 for þa on Monandæg þurh ut Eoferwic.”[65]
Chronicle D and E have a greatly truncated version of events, which do not take
time to say much of anything, let alone pay such attention to the sequence of
events. Both texts say simply that Harold was informed of the outcome of the
battle.
It
is in their brief descriptions of the actual Battle of Stamford Bridge that the
chroniclers of both D and E, in different ways, come out in support of Harold
Godwinson. Chronicle E’s account is the shortest: “man cydde Harolde cyng hu
hit wæs þær gedon geworden, he com mid mycclum here engliscra manna gemette
hine æt Stængfordesbrycge hine ofsloh þone eorl Tostig eallne þone here ahtlice
ofercom.”[66] To
have ‘ahtlice’ or courageously defeated the force of Norwegians and earl
Tostig’s men, shows the chronicler’s support of Harold Godwinson and the
English in this battle. Chronicle D’s account is longer. Not only does Harold
defeat the force at Stamford Bridge, but he takes them by surprise, ‘com … on
unwær’:
Đa com Harold ure cyng
on unwær on þa Normenn hytte hi begeondan Eoforic æt Steinfordbrygge mid micclan
here englisces folces, þær wearð on daeg swiðe stranglic gefeoht on ba halfe.
Þar wearð ofslægen Harold Harfagera, Tosti eorl, þa Normen þe þær to lafe wæron
wurdon on fleame, þa engliscan hi hindan hetelice slogon, oð þæt hig sume to
scype coman, sume adruncen, sume eac forbærnde, swa mislice forfarene þæt þær
wæs lyt to lafe, Engle ahton wælstowe geweald. [67]
Both chronicles say that Harold had a “micclan here
englisces folces’ or ‘mycclum here engliscra manna.’ Chronicle D, at the moment
of his death, calls Haraldr ‘Harold Harfagera,’ which is unfortunately the
wrong epithet, but shows that the chronicler had heard something of Norwegian
history. But more than one historian of the conquest has noted that Chronicle D
calls Harold Godwinson, ‘Harold ure cyng,’ indicating some sort of sympathy
with the last Anglo-Saxon king of England.[68]
Chronicle C, again is much more
detailed. It goes into Haraldr and Tostig’s motivations for being at Stamford
Bridge, as they wait for ‘gislas’:
Harold cyning of
Norwegan tostig eorl heora gefylce wæron afaren of scipe begeondan Eoforwic to
Stanford brycge, forþam þe him wæron behaten to gewissan þæt him man þær of
ealre þinre scire ongean hy gislas bringan wolde. Đa com Harold Engl cyning,
heom ongean on unwaran, begeondan þære brycge, he þær togædre fengon swyðe
heardlice lange on dæg feohtende wæron, þær wæs Harold cyning of Norwegan
Tostig eorl ofslagen, gerim folces mid heom, ægðer ge Norman age Englisca.[69]
Both Norwegians and the English are being killed during
this battle. This Chronicle chooses to highlight the losses in battle, in
addition to the English victory. As the Norwegians flee for their ships there
is an interesting account which was added to the end of Chronicle C in a twelfth
century hand. This account, of the Norwegian who defended the bridge against a
whole English force, is attested to in Henry of Huntingdon’s account, a later
English source, in addition to Chronicle C:
þa Normen flugon þa
Englisa. Đa wes þer an on Norwegan þe widstod þet Englisce folc þet hi ne micte
þa brigge oferstigen ne sige gerechen. Þa seite an Englisce mid anre flane ac
hit nactes ne widstod. Ænd þa com an oþer under þere brigge, end hine þurustang
en under þere brunie. Þa com Harold Engla chinge ofer þere brigge hys furde
forð mid hine; þere Michel wel geslogon ge Norweis ge Flæming.[70]
The problem of the late addition to the Chronicle C text is that it makes this account more
troublesome than other things in C which are just from a different tradition
than D or E. This is a problem for historians who have valued the historicity
of other aspects of the Chronicle, despite the fact that the accounts do not
agree. Certainly historian Ian Walker believes that this event has no
historical value.[71]
It may have a much later provenance, and in terms of how we moderns imagine the
world, it is even less believable than the rest of the narrative. Regardless,
it is an interesting part of the tradition that is left to us because we do not
know why someone else decided to add that in, or really that it wasn’t part of
the earlier narrative in the first place. It is not recorded in non-English
sources, but as DeVries points out, this could be because it would be something
the English would notice and not the Norwegians, who were in retreat, though
that is speculation and adds no evidence to give the event more historical
weight.[72]
The text of Chronicle C ends in 1066 not necessarily because it was finished at
that time, but because the manuscript was mangled. This part of the narrative
may have even originally been a part of Chronicle C before the mangling.
The
last words in Chronicle C are: þes cyninges sunu Hetmundus let Harold faran ham
to Norweie mid all scipe.[73]
We know about Haraldr’s son Magnus, but Mundus has not been mentioned before.
At this point the Chronicle stops. The best wrap up of the Norwegian Invasion
of England is given in Chronicle D:
Se kyng þa geaf gryð Olafe,
þæs Norna cynges suna, heora biscoppe, þan eorle of Orcanege, eallon þan þe on
þam scypum to lafe wæron, hi foron þa upp to uran kyninge, sworon aðas þæt hi
æfre woldon fryð freondscype into þisan lande haldan, se cyng hi let lam faran
mid .xxiiii. scypum.[74]
The speed with which this all happened really comes
across in Chronicle D: Þas twa folcgefeoht wæron gefremmede binnan fif nihtan.[75]
Whereas up until now Chroncile C’s account of the year has offered the most
detailed narrative, Chronicle D offers historians of 1066 a tale of woe, one
that really criticizes the decisions of the Anglo-Saxons after Harold
Godwinson’s death, and lamenting the loss of life that could have been spared
by earlier surrender. Chronicle E does not even mention what happened next, but
in its effort to get on with it jumps
right into a description of the Norman Conquest, which it also speeds through
so it can get on to the very important task of relating what happened in the
local area in that same year.
The Norwegians in Chronicles C, D and E
Chronicle C, British Library, MS
Cotton Tiberius B.i, is one of the Abingdon Chronicles, which like MS B draws
on an Abingdon Chronicle text for a lot of its material.[76]
The manuscript itself was composed around 1044 and was added to after that.[77]
While there are a lot of markers in the 1066 entry to indicate its later addition,
it is still thought to be roughly contemporary with the events of 1066. The
events in 1065 and 1066 have been shown by D.C. Douglas to have an
anti-Godwinist slant, which should be taken into account when reading the
events of 1066, though it is unclear how that relates to the sentiment of the
rest of the chronicle.[78]
It can not be said that it did originally have an account of the Battle of
Hastings, just that the Chronicler knew about it. In the introduction of the
entry for 1066 C and D use the same text or tradition, which gives typical
markers for the year including the ascension to the throne of Harold Godwinson,
the death of the previous king Edward, and the comet. But from there C offers a
truly unique text, one that historians of the Conquest would love to have been
continued. It is very detailed, and gives motivations to Tostig and Harold for
their decisions. In this narrative the Norwegian invasion is an extension of
Tostig’s treachery. Tostig is already characterized negatively, by saying he
attacked the country and by kidnapping men in Sandwich. This is the only
Chronicle that speaks of a sort of ‘conspiracy’ with Haraldr: Tostig is not
just joining up with an already in process invasion, this Chronicle gives more
weight to the interpretation that Tostig was heavily involved in creating the
Norwegian Invasion than in Chronicle D and E. Haraldr is a surprise to the
English, but not to Tostig. Tostig also does not submit himself to Haraldr as
he does in the other Chronicles. With Haraldr Tostig is able to win against
Eadwin and the new earl of York Morkere, but even the two of them combined are
not able to defeat Harold Godwinson.
The chronicler is also very concerned
with the loss of life on both sides. Norwegian lives lost show how well the English
are doing, but the English lives lost show at what cost: “he þær togædre fengon
swyðe heardlice lange on dæg feohtende wæron, þær wæs Harold cyning of Norwegan
Tostig eorl ofslagen, gerim folces mid heom, ægðer ge Norman age Englisca.”[79]
Along those lines, there is a lot of futility in Harold’s actions: “man hafde
landfyrde æghwar be sæ þeh hit æt þam ende naht ne forstode.”[80]
The Norman Conquest, while not
described, is alluded to several times by talking about how futile the
preparations Harold made actually were. The focus on Tostig and the trials and
tribulations, and the extensive characterization of the people and events makes
for an interesting read. It also indicates that in Chronicle C, Haraldr
Harðráði and the Norwegians are props for the internal conflict amongst the
English. The original contributions of the Norwegians are played down, and the
English decisions are played up.
According to G.P. Cubbin, Chronicle D,
British Library, Cotton MS. Tiberius B.iv, gives the ‘most patriotic’ version
of the events of 1066.[81]
Chronicle D is sometimes called the Worcester Manuscript, as it was found there
in 1565 and also has a particular interest in local events from both there and
from York, which is probably explained by shared interests in both regions in
the 1050s when the manuscript was first compiled.[82]
D is interesting because for 1066 it uses one source that is the same as C and
one source that is the same as E. Again, the textual histories and
relationships are very diffilcut to decipher. Chronicle D takes a much more ‘us
versus them’ perspective, amplified by the presence of the ‘our king’
note. In the depictions of the
Norwegians, the Norwegians’ death alone is described in the battles fought with
them. The description of the Battle at Fulford Gate only says that Norwegians
won: “hi foron þa begen into Humbran, oð þæt hi common to Eoforwic, heom þær
wið fuhton Eadwine eorl Morkere eorl, his broðor, ac þa Normen ahton sige.”[83]
In the depiction of the Battle of Stamford Bridge the description of the
battlefield at the end of the battle is extensive: hig sume to scype coman,
sume adruncen, sume eac forbærnde, swa mislice forfarene þæt þær wæs lyt to
lafe, Engle ahton wælstowe geweald.”[84]
At the end of the battle the mercy of the English is also highlighted.
This us vs. them perspective continues
into the description of the Norman Conquest, as the chronicler focuses on what
the English should do differently, and not describing the Norman victory in the
same glowing and graphic terms as the Battle of Stamford Bridge. In fact there
was slaughter on both sides, showing how well the English come off. There is an
overtly pro-Anglo-Saxon version of the 1066 in this Chronicle. It differs from
C, which is about internal conflict, and presents the English as a whole.
Tostig joins up and swears fealty to Haraldr, showing that he has ultimately
become a ‘them’ and not an ‘us.’ Unintentionally, by calling Haraldr Harfagera
instead of Harðráði the chronicler in D has accidentally conflated the most
famous ‘Viking’ kings of Norway, from one the earliest to the so-called last,
into one conceptual Norwegian ‘other.’
For the entry for 1066, while
Chronicle E, Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Laud Misc. 636, takes a lot of its
information from the same source as Chronicle D, it is a lot shorter. Chronicle
E is also known as the Peterborough Chronicle because of its creation and
location in Peterborough and because of its heavy interest, in the form of interpolations
throughout the Chronicle, of local interest material. The entry for 1066 is a
perfect example of this, because all the national political events take up the
same amount of textual space as the local events, which are not listed in other
Chronicles. The details that are left out of E that are present in D are a lot
of the details which make the D version a pro-Anglo-Saxon text. Instead it is much
more neutral in its description. For instance, there are no appeals to God’s
mercy during the Conquest, as there are in Chronicle D. There are instead more
generic markers of the time period. Chronicle E uses national events to create
a setting for the local participation in those events.
However, the role of Haraldr Harðráði
is more important in E than it is in D and C. In an interesting, minor
difference between D and E, in the description of who won the battle at Fulford
Gate D says the Norwegians had the victory. E says the Norwegian king has the
victory: “hi bægen foran into Hunbran oð þet hi coman to Eoferwic, heom wið
feaht Morkere eorl Eadwine eorl, se norrena cyng ahte siges geweald.”[85]
Though the description is not more than a few lines, Haraldr has the most agency
in E, where he meets with Tostig in Scotland and is submitted to by Tostig,
minimizing Tostig’s involvement in getting him to England. Likewise, he is a
military power-house, by being the force behind Fulford Gate. Harold Godwinson journeys
north to meet ‘him’, and slays ‘him’ and earl Tostig at the bridge, with the ‘him’
in this case referring to Haraldr Harðráði: “he com mid mycclum here engliscra
manna gemette hine æt Stængfordesbrycge hine ofsloh þone eorl Tostig eallne
þone here ahtlice ofercom.”[86]
In Chronicle E Haraldr is a force to be reckoned with, and is reckoned with, by
King Harold Godwinson.
That all three texts are focused on
the English perspective was a foregone conclusion; we would not expect anything
different. All three texts are focused
on how these events affect the Anglo-Saxons, with the E text focused even a
little closer to home than England. But their English biases affect them here
in three different ways, especially in terms of how they characterize the
invading Norwegian force and the Norwegian King Haraldr Harðráði. Historians
have used this useful information to reconstruct the events of 1066 and the
Norwegian Invasion, and have used later chronicles and sagas to fill out the
account. But the genre of Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, due to the way it is constructed, has a historicity to it that
few other sources can match and will continue to be an important source for
historians reconstructing this crucial period in English and Scandinavian
history.
Bibliography
Bately, Janet M., ed. The
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS A). Vol. 3. Cambridge:
D.S. Brewer, 1986.
Brown, Michelle P. Manuscripts from the Anglo-Saxon Age. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2007.
Conner, Patrick W., ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative
Edition (The Abingdon Chronicle A.D. 956-1066). Vol. 10. Cambrige: D.S.
Brewer, 1996.
Crossley-Holland, Kevin. The Anglo-Saxon World. 2nd. Woodbridge:
Boydell Press, 2002.
Cubbin, G.P., ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition
(MS D). Vol. 6. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1996.
DeVries, Kelly. The Norwegian Invasion of England in 1066.
Woodbrige: Boydell Press, 1999.
Finch, Paul. "Viking dusk at Stamford Bridge." Military
History 20, no. 1 (April 2003): 34-40.
Garmonsway, G.N., ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. London: J.M.
Dent and Sons Ltd., 1972.
Georgianna, Linda. "Periodization and Politics: The Case of the
Missing Twelfth Century in English Literary History." MLQ: Modern
Language Quarterly (Duke University Press) 64, no. 2 (June 2003): 153-168.
Irvine, Susan, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition
(MS E). Vol. 7. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2004.
Reeves, Scott. "Glamping at Stamford Bridge." British
Heritage 33, no. 1 (March 2012): 56-59.
Rex, Peter. 1066: A New History of the Norman Conquest. Stroud:
Amberley Publishing Plc, 2009.
Savage, Anne, trans. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles: The Authentic Voices
of England from the time of Julius Caesar to the Coronation of Henry II.
New York: Crescent Books, 1995.
Swanton, Michael J. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. New York:
Routledge, 1998.
Walker, Ian W. "Chapter Ten: Harald of Norway." In Harold:
The Last Anglo-Saxon King, 152-165. Stroud: Sutton Publishing Ltd., 1997.
[1] Scott Reeves, "Glamping at Stamford Bridge," British Heritage
33, no. 1 (March 2012), 57.
[2] Linda Georgianna, "Periodization and Politics: The Case of the
Missing Twelfth Century in English
Literary History," MLQ: Modern
Language Quarterly (Duke University Press) 64, no. 2 (June 2003), 154.
[4] DeVries, The Norwegian Invasion, 5.
[5] DeVries, The Norwegian Invasion, 5
[6] Anne Savage, trans., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles: The Authentic Voices
of England from the time of
Julius Caesar to the Coronation of Henry II (New York: Crescent Books, 1995), 10.
[7] Many historians, like Kelly DeVries, use the saga spelling for
Haraldr Harðráði and the Old English spelling for Harold Godwinson. Since this
paper is analyzing only the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle it would make sense to render
them both in Old-English, but in the end there is a lot of confusion between
Harolds. This paper instead is going to keep the saga spelling for Haraldr
Harðráði and the Old English for Harold Godwinson for clarity, and also to fit
in with current historiography.
[8] Savage, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 11.
[9] Kevin
Crossley-Holland, The Anglo-Saxon World, 2nd ( Woodbridge:
Boydell Press, 2002), 32.
[10] Crossley-Holland, The Anglo-Saxon
World, 32.
[11] G.P. Cubbin, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition (MS
D). Vol. 6. (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1996), xvii; Michael J. Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (New
York: Routledge, 1998), xix.
[12] Michelle P. Brown, Manuscripts from the Anglo-Saxon Age (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2007), 86.
[13] Savage, The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, 10.
[14] Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, xix.
[15] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
xvii.
[16] Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, xvii-xviii.
[17] Crossley-Holland, The Anglo-Saxon
World, 32.
[18] Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, xxxi.
[19] G.N. Garmonsway, ed. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (London: J.M. Dent
and Sons Ltd., 1972), xxxiii.
[20] Garmonsway, The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, xxxiii; Savage 11
[21] Susan Irvine ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition
(MS E), Vol. 7 (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2004), xxii-xxiii.
[22] Patrick W., Conner ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative
Edition (The Abingdon Chronicle A.D. 956-1066). Vol. 10. (Cambrige: D.S.
Brewer, 1996), 36.
Just as it subsequently came to pass
[23] Janet M. Bately, ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative
Edition (MS A). Vol. 3. (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1986), 35.
In this year came William
and conquered England. In this year Christ Church was burned.
[24] Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, xxxi.
[25] Garmonsway, The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, xxxvii.
[26] Garmonsway, The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, xxxvi.
[27] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
xxii-xxxiii; Garmonsway, The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, xli.
[28] Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, xv.
[29] Swanton, The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, xv.
[30] Savage, The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, 10; Swanton, The
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xv.
[31] MS C þisum
[32] MS C kyng
[33] MS C middan wintran
[34] MS C kyng
[35] M C dæig
[36] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 79.
In this year came king
Harold from York to Westminster, the Easter following the Christmas of the
king’s death, Easter being on 16 April.
[37] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 86.
1066. In this year the
abbey church at Westminster was consecrated on Holy Innocents’ day [28
December], and king Edward passed away on the vigil of, and was buried on,
Epiphany [6 January] in the newly consecrated abbey church of Westminster. Earl
Harold succeeded to the kingdom of England as the king granted it to him and as
he was elected thereto. He was consecrated king on Epiphany.
[38] Crossley-Holland, The Anglo-Saxon
World, 33.
[39] DeVries, The Norwegian
Invasion, 240.
[40] MS D man
[41] MS D geseah
[42] MS D cwedon
[43] MS D hit
[44] MS D faexedon
[45] MS D kalendas
[46] MS D scan
[47] MS D seofon
[48] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 36.
At that time, throughout all England, a
portent such as men had never seen before was seen in the heavens. Some
declared that the star was a comet, which some call ‘the long-haired star’: it
first appeared on the eve of the festival of Letania maior, which is on 24
April, and shone every night for a week.
[49] MS E hwile
[50] MS E lx
[51] MS E landfyrde
[52] MS E adraf
[53] MS E butsecarlas
[54] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
80.
Meanwhile earl Tostig came into the
Humber with sixty ships, and earl Edwin came with land levies and drove him
out, and the shipmen deserted him.
[55] Paul Finch, "Viking dusk at Stamford Bridge," Military
History 20, no. 1 (April 2003), 37.
[56] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
79.
King Harold, his brother, gathered
together greater naval and land hosts than any king had ever done in this
country, because he was informed that William the Bastard was about to invade
this land to conquer it, just as it subsequently came to pass.
[57] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
86.
In the same year in which he became
king, he sailed out against William with a naval force.
[58] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
87.
Although in the end it was all to no
purpose.
[59] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 37.
And earl Tostig joined him, as they
had previously agreed, with all the host he had been able to muster.
[60] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
80.
Together they sailed into the Humber
until they came to York.
[61] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
80.
Where earl Eadwin and earl Morkere,
his brother, fought against them, but the Norwegians had the victory. Then king
Harold was informed how the fight had gone – it took place on the vigil of St
Matthew’s day [20 September].
[62] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
87.
Together they sailed into the Humber
until they came to York, where earl Morcar and earl Edwin fought against them,
and the Norwegian king gained the victory.
[63] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
38.
Earl Eadwin and earl Morkere had
gathered as great a force as they could from their earldom, and fought that
host and made great slaughter of them; but a great number of the English were
either slain or drowned or driven in flight, and the Norwegians had possession
of the place of slaughter.
[64] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
38.
After the battle king Harold of
Norway and earl Tostig entered York with as great a force as seemed to them
necessary and received hostages from the borough, besides assistance in the way
of provisions, and so retired thence to their ships. They offered to conclude
an abiding peace with the citizens provided that they all marched southwards
with them to conquer this realm.
[65] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 38.
Then meanwhile came
Harold, the king of the English, with all his levies on the Sunday to Tadcaster
and there drew up his household troops in battle order; and on the Monday he
marched through York.
[66] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
87.
When king Harold was informed what
had happened and come to pass, he came with a great host of Englishmen, and met
him at Stamford Bridge, and slew him and earl Tostig and courageously defeated
all that host.
[67] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.
Then Harold our king came
unexpectedly upon the Norwegians, and met them beyond York at Stamford Bridge
with a great host of Englishmen, and that day a very stubborn battle was fought
by both sides. They were slain Harold the Fairhaired [recte Hardrada] and earl
Tostig, and the remaining Norwegians were put to flight, while the English
piercely assailed their rear until some of them reached their ships: some were
drowned, others burnt to death, and thus perished in various ways so that there
were few survivors, and the English had possession of the place of slaughter.
[68] Ian W. Walker, "Chapter Ten: Harald of Norway," in Harold:
The Last Anglo-Saxon King, (Stroud: Sutton Publishing Ltd., 1997),
161.
[69] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
38.
Harold, king of Norway, and earl
Tostig and their force had gone from their ships beyond York to Stamford
Bridge, for it had been expressly promised them that hostages would be brought
to meet them there from the whole of the shire. Then Harold, king of the
English, came upon them unawares beyond the bridge. They joined battle and
fierce fighting went on until late in the day; and there Harold, king of
Norway, was slain and earl Tostig and countless numbers of men with them, both
English and Norwegians.
[70] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 80.
The Norwegians fled from the English,
but there was one Norwegian who stood firm against the English forces, so that
they could not cross the bridge nor clinch victory. An Englishman shot with an
arrow but to no avail, and another went under the bridge and stabbed him
through under the coat of mail. Then Harold, king of English, crossed the
bridge and his levies went forward with him; and there made great slaughter of
both Norwegians and Flemings.
[71] Walker, “Chapter 10,” 162-3.
[72] DeVries, The Norwegian Invasion,
283.
[73] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
39.
And Harold let the king’s son, who
was called Mundus [the ‘Elegant’], return to Norway with all the ships.
[74] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
80.
The king then gave quarter to Olaf,
the son of the king of the Norwegians, to their bishop, to the jarl of Orkney,
and to all those who were left aboard the ships. They then went inland to our
king, and swore oaths that they would ever maintain peace and friendship with
this land; and the king let them sail home with twenty-four ships.
[75] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
80.
These two pitched battles were fought
within five days.
[76] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
vii.
[77] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
xxxiv.
[78] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, lxviii.
They joined battle and fierce
fighting went on until late in the day; and there Harold, king of Norway, was
slain and earl Tostig and countless numbers of men with them, both English and
Norwegians.
[80] Conner, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
36.
Although in the end it was all to no
purpose (also quoted above).
[81] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, lxxviii.
[82] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
ix, liv.
[83] Cubbin, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
80.
Together they sailed into the Humber
until they came to York, where earl Eadwin and earl Morkere, his brother,
fought against them, but the Norwegians had the victory.
Some of them reached their ships:
some were drowned, others burnt to death, and thus perished in various ways so
that there were few survivors, and the English had possession of the place of
slaughter.
[85] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
87.
Together they sailed into the Humber
until they came to York, where earl Morcar and earl Edwin fought against them,
and the Norwegian king gained the victory.
[86] Irvine, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 87.
He came with a great host
of Englishmen, and met him at Stamford Bridge, and slew him and earl Tostig and
courageously defeated all that host
