ABSTRACT
It is generally assumed that the authority which Æthelstan enjoyed over the northern half of Britain had a precedent in the ‘submission’ of the northern kings to Edward the Elder in 920. The evidence for this meeting is, however, quite thin, and ultimately boils down to the second part of the entry for the year 920 in the Parker Chronicle, since later chroniclers added no new information, just their own interpretations. As the incident has attracted much comment, but little detailed study since Frederick Wainwright's article of almost fifty years ago (Wainwright 1952), a reassessment would seem to be in order. Despite the chronology established over a half-century ago (Angus 1938), and reiterated in Dorothy Whitelock's translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (Whitelock 1955: 194–9), confusion over the date of this event, occasionally given as 921,923 or 924, has continued, even in the most recent translation of the Chronicle (Swanton 1996). Janet Bately's edition established, however, that these are misdatings which resulted from later addition of minims to an initially correct date of 920 (Bately 1986: lviii, 69), and her conclusion has been supported by David Dumville (Dumville 1992:99–102). The text reads:
7 for pa ponan on Peaclond to Badecanwiellon 7 het gewyrcan ane burg pær on neaweste 7 gemannian, 7 hine geces pa to fæder 7 to hlaforde Scotta cyning 7 eall Scotta peod, 7 R^gnald 7 Eadulfes suna 7 ealle pa pe on Norphymbrum bugeap, ægper ge Englisce ge Denisce ge Norpmen ge opre, 7 eac Stræcledweala cyning 7 ealle Stræcledwealas.
(ASC(A) 920) In the words of Dorothy Whitelock's translation:Then he [Edward] went from there into the Peak district to Bakewell and ordered a borough to be built in the neighbourhood and manned. And then the king of the Scots and all the people of the Scots, and Ragnald, and the sons of Eadwulf and all who live in Northumbria, both English and Danish, Norsemen and others, and also the king of the Strathclyde Welsh and all the Strathclyde Welsh, chose him as father and lord.
(ASC(A) 920) At first glance this seems rather clear cut, and one may wonder what controversy could arise out of a statement in a generally reliable, and at least nearcontemporary, source, that some sort of submission took place in 920. Indeed, despite some dissenting voices, modern standard works of both English and Scottish history have generally interpreted this entry along that line. Although now dated, Sir Frank Stenton's assessment is typical. ‘To Edward himself the submission meant that each ruler who became his man promised to respect his territory and to attack his enemies’ (Stenton 1971: 334). Wainwright was the first scholar this century to provide a serious challenge to the consensus, and claimed that ‘The “submission” was fundamentally no more than an anti-Norse coalition’ (Wainwright 1952: 127). Alfred Smyth put forward some very good arguments against the ‘submission’ interpretation, but unfortunately in a book which received poor reviews (Smyth 1984:199–200). The most telling criticism, however, has come from Pauline Stafford, who noted that ‘The kings of Scots might well have described this alliance sealed on the Pennine borders of York and Mercia in other ways’ (Stafford 1989: 33). She argued that the business of the meeting was essentially a settling of the political landscape in Britain. This paper will assess this conclusion, along with Wainwright's and the traditional vision of a general ‘submission’ to Edward.