LECTURE X.-ENGLAND IN PROSPERITY.

Alfred's descendants. Ethelstane. Condition of the people. Ranks of society. The poor. Slavery. Treatment of women. Food, amusements, dress, buildings. The names for the months.

901. Edward the Elder.

1. THOUGH Alfred died before his time, happily for England he left worthy children behind him. His eldest son, Edward, was made king, and under him England became greater and more glorious than it had ever yet been. He seems to have been quite as skilful a warrior and ruler as his father, but though he had had a good education, he was not so fond of study and books. Alfred appears to have taken special pains in training him and his eldest sister to succeed him in governing the kingdom and protecting it from the Danes. The sister, Ethelfled, was married to an alderman, a title which has been explained before. At the time of which we are now speaking an alderman seems to have been almost the same as a viceroy or under-king. Though Alfred was king over all (in a sense), still it was hundreds of years before it was forgotten that Mercia, Northumberland, and the others had been once separate kingdoms, and every now and then a king crops up among them, especially in the north.

2. Ethelfled's husband was Alderman or Viceroy of Mercia, and he helped Alfred and Edward most gallantly in the struggle with the Danes. After he died Ethelfled took his

The Lady

of the Mercians.

place, and was quite as brave and gallant as he. In King Alfred's will he made a distinction between what he called the "spear-half" and the "spindlehalf" of his family. He provided very liberally for his wife and daughters; but had he lived to see how Ethelfled led armies, built fortresses, and conquered enemies, he would perhaps have said she belonged to the "spear-half."

3. She helped her brother Edward not only in defending the kingdom which Alfred left, but also in reconquering the other part of Mercia where the Danes had settled themselves very strongly, and had founded the five boroughs which were called

the "Danish boroughs," Derby, Lincoln, Leicester, Stamford, and Nottingham. The boroughs themselves, however, were not conquered till some time afterwards. They also reconquered Essex and East Anglia, and they built forts in all directions. This was something quite new in English or Anglo-Saxon warfare, for all the German race hated walls and cities. But in the time of danger they had most likely often profited by the strong walls which the old Romans had built in many places, which were still standing firm, and which would give them shelter from their enemies. And so, by degrees, they became partly reconciled to fortresses and walled towns, though they still loved the open forest and plain better.

Submission

of the

whole

island.

4. When Ethelfled, "the Lady of the Mercians," died, her brother succeeded to her dominions, and thus became king over all England south of the Humber. Here he was sole king, with no under-kings; but he was now so powerful that the other princes and kings in the whole island submitted to him. The Welsh and the Scotch had suffered from the Danes as much as the English had done, and no doubt they felt the need of a powerful protector; so "the kings of North Wales, and all the North Welsh race, sought him for lord.” North Wales meant all that we call Wales now, and as these North Welsh were the descendants of the ancient Britons, we may say that their conquest was now complete for the time. Then a year or two afterwards "the King of the Scots, and all the nation of the Scots, and all those who dwelt in Northumbria, as well English as Danish, and Northmen, and others, and also the King of the Strathclyde Welsh, and all the Strathclyde Welsh, chose him for father and lord."

922.

924.

5. Edward was the over-king of all these; they owed him service, and he owed them protection. These under-kings and under-lords are called "vassals;" and we shall find the same system become more and more general throughout Europe as we go on. Thus Edward may be considered as sole king of England south of the Humber, and over-lord, or emperor, as he is sometimes called, of all the rest of the island-of all the Welsh and all the Scotch.

6. After his death his son Ethelstane was made king. He was as grand a king as his father. He too had had the advantage of being partly trained up by his grandfather Alfred; for we read that he was brought up at Alfred's court, and that, being a beautiful and gentle boy,

925. Ethelstane.

with golden hair, his grandfather was delighted with him; prophesied that he would have a fortunate reign when his turn came, and gave him a royal purple mantle, a belt set with precious stones, and a sword in a golden sheath.

7. Ethelstane added to his father's kingdom the whole of Northumberland, so he was really King of England; very much the same England that it is now, except Cumberland, or Strathclyde, which had its own under-king still. But he

937.

had to fight for it. The Danes, Welsh, and Scotch joined together to rebel against him and at Brunanburh one of the greatest fights the English had ever fought was fought and won. It seems to have been such a glorious victory that the man who was writing the history of this time (in the 'Anglo-Saxon Chronicle') could not be content with telling it in a plain way, but broke out into poetry.

8. As we have now come to the palmy days of the AngloSaxon kingdom, we will pause and try to form some clearer idea of the habits and manner of life of our forefathers in those old times.

Ranks of
Society.

We know that from the earliest times they had had different ranks of society, as we have now, only that they were still more distinct than ours are. For they thought they were of different birth and origin altogether, although our dear and noble Alfred taught the proud earls that men were all of one blood, saying, “Every one knows that all men come from one father and one mother." The old Teutons had not thought that, and though, of course, now that they were Christians they were bound to believe it, they still made a great deal of noble birth. We heard of the king, the earls, and the churls. The earls were the nobles, and the churls were the freemen, who were not noble, but who nearly always owned some land and had a voice in the government. But there was by this time another class of nobles also, who were not necessarily born so. These were the king's special followers and servants, whom he used to reward with lands and titles, just as now a clever lawyer or a victorious soldier is often made a lord, and has money or land given him. These newer nobles were called "thanes" or thegns." churl might rise to be a thane, but in the old times he could never rise to be an earl.

A

9. An English king was not absolute; that is, he could not govern according to his own will; he had to get the consent of

the "wise men" for all that he commanded. The earls and the thanes, the bishops and the abbots, The Witenagemot, or were all supposed to be wise; and these formed an Witan. assembly or council for the king to refer to. The assembly was called in the old English language "Witan," or Witan meant wise or "Witenagemot." witty" men, and gemot meant assembly.*

66

10. We have a curious way of seeing the different value they put upon the different ranks by the punishments that were fixed for injuring or killing them. In our days, if a man murdered an archbishop, a duke, or a beggar he would get just the same punishment. The life of every man, woman, or child in the country is held of the same value; but in those days there was a great difference. The punishment was generally a fine in money, paid to the family of the slaughtered man to compensate them for their loss. In the scale of fines fixed in Alfred's time, we find that to kill a king cost 120 shillings. Money was worth a great deal more then than it is now, and this was considered a very large sum. Moreover, he had to pay that twice over once to the king's own family, and then again the same sum to the nation, because both had suffered loss. For an archbishop the slayer had to pay ninety shillings; for a bishop, alderman, or earl sixty shillings; and so on, down to the simple churl, and for him only five shillings!

"thralls."

Slaves.

11. But below all these there were a race of people whose family got nothing at all. These were the slaves or If any one killed a slave he only had to make compensation to his master for the loss of his services, just as he would have done had he killed his horse or his ox. We are not to think our forefathers were worse than other people in having slaves, for in old times, as was mentioned before, this was the universal practice. The slaves belonging to the English were partly descended from the old conquered Britons, but were partly of the same race as themselves. Sometimes freemen were degraded into slaves in punishment for some crime; sometimes they sank into that class through poverty, or sold their children into it. It was permitted by law to a poor man to sell his child, provided the child consented.

12. We will now look a little more closely into the condition of the old English slaves, because, though we read very little about them in history, they were really the largest part of the

people. There were many more slaves than freemen, just as now there are many more poor and working people than there are rich people.

13. One great interest in studying history is to notice how things have changed for the better. We have already observed how differently wars were carried on after the introduction of Christianity from what they were before, and at the present time they are far less savage and cruel than they were even two or three hundred years ago. The state of the poor is another thing in which there is a great change for the better-so great and marked a change that it ought to give us much hope for the future. The improvement, the progress which has been going on so long will not stop now, we may be sure.

14. A thousand years ago, nearly all the working classes in England, nearly all the ploughmen, the shepherds, the carpenters, the cooks, and the dairymaids were slaves. Let us try to realize that. In our days, if a man has a bad master, if a girl has a bad mistress, if they have to work too hard, if they do not get enough wages, if they are unkindly treated, what do they do? In theory at least, they can go away and seek another service which will suit them better. A thousand years ago, they could not do that. The master or mistress they had would always be their master or mistress, good or bad, kind or cruel. If the servant was goaded into running away, his master might pursue him and kill him, if he chose, for he was his own property. He would not be punished for killing him any more than a farmer would be punished for killing a vicious bull or an unruly horse. Again, the master, if he chose, might sell his servants. A slave was worth about five or ten shillings in those days, and there was a regular slave-market kept up at Bristol, which went on for hundreds of years. The master might whip them, or chain them up, or brand them; in short, he might be very nearly as cruel as he liked. Though it does not appear that they were often very cruel, still, with these powers we may imagine what a passionate or tyrannical master might make his slaves suffer.

15. The slaves were sometimes sold into foreign parts, but in general they were kept to the land on which they were born. If a man sold his farm or his estate, he sold with it the men, and the cattle, and the crops. The sheep, the pigs, the men, and the oxen are all put down together. If a gentleman or lady made a will, they would put down in it the house, furniture, money, land, and slaves. All this sounds very curious to us, and perhaps even rather amusing. But let us try and