and the Danes-for the chroniclers do not mention the ulterior results of the battle-probably retired with the plunder which they had gained. This defeat must have been galling to the mind of the West-Saxon king, who had never before been worsted, and it added to his indignation, that he himself, after a whole day's doubtful fighting, with difficulty escaped from the battle, aided by the darkness of the night. Two years afterwards he had an opportunity afforded him for retrieving his reputation: a large army of Danes landed, in 835, on the coast of Cornwall, and finding the people inclined to rebel against the dominion of the Saxons, a treaty was speedily made between them, and an united army of Danes and Britons was led into the territories of Wessex. Now, however, King Egbert was prepared to receive them: at the head of his army he encountered the enemy, though superior to him in numbers, at Hengstone Hill, and inflicted on their combined forces so serious a defeat, that the Britons dispersed to their mountains, and the Danes sought refuge in their ships. Notwithstanding this defeat, the Northmen again made an attempt on England in the year 837 in two separate places, but with different success. One of their fleets, consisting of thirty-five ships, came to land near Southampton, where they were met by Alderman Wolfherd, and defeated with much slaughter. Meanwhile their other

Huntingdon. Whatever were their names, they probably were the bishops of Winchester and Salisbury, whose dioceses lay near the scene of the battle. The aldermen were named Dudda and Osmond. Sax. Ch. Ethel. Flor. Hunt.

b Will. Malmesbury, Book II. Sax. Ch. Ethel. Flor. Hunt. * Sax. Ch. Ethel. Flor. Hunt.

division landed at Porchester in Dorsetshire, where they found Alderman Ethelhelm, at the head of the men of Dorset, waiting to receive them. This time, however, the star of the Anglo-Saxons was on the wane. After making great exertions during the whole day, which were partly successful, to obtain the victory, the Danes finally prevailed: the Alderman was slain, and his army defeated!. This disaster was speedily followed by others; for in the ensuing year, “Alderman Herbert was slain by the heathen-men, and many with him among the Marsh-men; and afterwards, in the same year, in Lindsey, and in East Anglia, and in Kent, many men were slain by the enemy "." Thus the good fortune of Egbert, which had borne him triumphant through so many battles, seemed at length to have deserted him; but he was mercifully spared by death from witnessing the calamities which were coming upon his country. He died at the end of 838, or the beginning of 839", leaving his dominions to be divided between his sons Ethelwolf and Ethelstan, the former of whom inherited the paternal sovereignty of Wessex, whilst the latter received a tributary kingdom, consisting of the modern counties of Kent, Essex, Surrey, and Sussex °.

'Sax. Ch. Ethel. Flor. Hunt.

Sax. Ch. Ethel. Flor. Hunt.

The death of Egbert is placed in 835, by the Saxon Chronicle, Ethelwerd, Florence, and Huntingdon; but there are two charters bearing his signature dated in 838, which prove that he was then still alive. See Mr. Hardy's edition of William of Malmesbury, vol. i. p. 60, note, where this subject is considered. See also supra, p. 15,

note °.

• The obscure language of the old chroniclers leaves it doubtful whether Ethelstan was the younger son of Egbert, or the son of Ethelwolf. In the latter case, there appears to be no valid reason,

why Ethelbald, Ethelbert, and Ethelred, sons of Ethelwolf, should have been passed over in the division of the kingdom, in favour of their youngest brother Ethelstan. Rapin, in his History of England, gives the two following notices of the family: the first from the unpublished chronicle of J. Beaver; the second from John of Tinmuth. "" Redburg, his spouse, had never assumed the title and port of a queen, because of the law made in Wessex, on account of the death of Bertric. She is said to have persuaded the king to forbid the Welsh, on pain of death, to come beyond Offa's dike, the boundary of Mercia and Wales."

"Some say he [Egbert] had also a daughter called Edgith, who founded the abbey of Pollesworth, but this is uncertain."

CHAP. IV.

THE REIGN OF ETHELWOLF, FROM A.D. 839 TO 858.-HIS WARS WITH THE DANES AND WELSH-HIS SONS ETHELBALD, ETHELBERT, ETHELRED, AND ALFRED-HIS PIETY-JOURNEY ΤΟ ROME

REBELLION OF ETHELBALD-DIVISION OF THE KINGDOM-ETHELWOLF'S DEATH.

By the decease of Egbert, an arduous duty devolved upon the shoulders of his successor. Concerning the character of that successor, the opinions of historians have long been divided. The historian of Malmesbury has described him as an imbecile prince, more fit to be a priest than a king; but this view of his character is certainly not substantiated by any of the earlier chronicles. In the battles which he fought, year after year, against the Danish marauders, he displayed both courage and good generalship; and if he gave too much attention to the representations of the clergy to exempt him altogether from the charge of superstition, we must ascribe it to the temper of the age, which was grossly sunk in superstition, and would have rejected, as impious, a monarch who should treat with contempt the forms and ceremonies of religion. When to this we add, that the early education of Ethelwolf was confided to the charge of Swithin, bishop of Winchester", who also in conjunction with Alstan, bishop of Sherborne, were his principal advisers and ministers of state, it is not surprising that he should have displayed throughout his reign a steady attachment to those ceremonies of religion, which he had been

.

trained to reverence from his earliest years. It is generally admitted by historians, that Ethelwolf was educated in the monastic life at Winchester; but it has even been asserted by some, that he received holy orders, and was in due time promoted to the bishopric of the Church in which he had received his education. Malmesbury' indeed says, that at the time of Egbert's death, his son Ethelwolf was a subdeacon, and was allowed to change the cloister for the throne, by a dispensation from Pope Leo the Third, because there was no other heir to the throne. In refutation of this story it is sufficient to observe, that Pope Leo the Third had been dead twenty years; that Ethelstan, the brother of Ethelwolf, was as well qualified to rule Wessex as Kent; and, as Dr. Lingard has justly observed, the historian Malmesbury, who has given this story in his Lives of the Bishops, has made no allusion to it in his general work on the History of the English Kings. We have also seen, that several years before his father's death, the young prince had been chosen to command an army by which Kent, Sussex, and Essex, were successfully invaded, and reduced to permanent subjection: we shall also perceive, as our narrative advances, that the son of Egbert, in the wars which followed, conducted himself like a brave prince, and deserved-if merit could command success-to rescue his country from the calamities which were coming thick upon her.

b Ibid. "The tale of Ethelwolf having been bishop of Winchester is still less entitled to credit. Both reports probably arose from confounding together different persons with the same or similar names. Thus in the ancient life of St. Neot, [Acta SS. Bened. Sæc. iv. tom. ii. p. 325.] the bishop of Winchester his contemporary, and Ethelwold, who was bishop a century afterwards, are both described as the same person." Lingard, i. p. 148.