Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Dissertations Graduate College 6-2017 Deadly Hostility: Feud, Violence, and Power in Early Anglo-Saxon England David DiTucci Western Michigan University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations Part of the European History Commons Recommended Citation DiTucci, David, "Deadly Hostility: Feud, Violence, and Power in Early Anglo-Saxon England" (2017). Dissertations. 3138. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/3138 This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DEADLY HOSTILITY: FEUD, VIOLENCE, AND POWER IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND by David DiTucci A dissertation submitted to the Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy History Western Michigan University June 2017 Doctoral Committee: Robert F. Berkhofer III, Ph.D., Chair Jana Schulman, Ph.D. James Palmitessa, Ph.D. E. Rozanne Elder, Ph.D. DEADLY HOSTILITY: FEUD, VIOLENCE, AND POWER IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND David DiTucci, Ph.D. Western Michigan University, 2017 This dissertation examines the existence and political relevance of feud in Anglo-Saxon England from the fifth century migration to the opening of the Viking Age in 793. The central argument is that feud was a method that Anglo-Saxons used to understand and settle conflict, and that it was a tool kings used to enhance their power. The first part of this study examines the use of fæhð in Old English documents, including laws and Beowulf, to demonstrate that fæhð referred to feuds between parties marked by reciprocal acts of retaliation. This assertion is in opposition to Guy Halsall’s argument that words such as fæhð referred to ritual vengeance, in which a single act of revenge terminated a dispute, and not to an ongoing relationship between parties. Written evidence further demonstrates that the Anglo-Saxons conceived of multiple types of conflict as feud, providing an intellectual framework for thinking about conflict generally. Case studies of feuds in the remaining chapters also reveal the changing nature of power in early Anglo-Saxon England. These case studies make use of a wide variety of sources, including written and material evidence as well as anthropological theories. Rulers before 597 lacked lasting authority and acquired power primarily through violent action. They did not control social relationships nor did they have the authority to enforce their wills without the threat of violence. With the arrival of Christian missionaries from Rome, kings beginning with Æthelberht (d.603) asserted control over dispute resolution in order to build authority. Conversion to Christianity brought Roman methods of rule which Anglo-Saxon kings deployed to varying degrees of success over two centuries. Those rulers who separated themselves from prevailing social bonds came to dominate social relationships, allowing them to gain more followers and control over dispute resolution. Rather than being a chief of a single kinship group, they brought multiple kinship groups together into an ethnic group and created kingship. Not driven by ideals, kings and other leaders adopted whatever tools might provide them with greater power. Violence remained a key strategy of power throughout the period under consideration. Some kings were unable to rein in feud and direct dispute resolution to their courts, but also engaged in feuds that were destructive to their power. Royal feuds in Northumbria prevented any single ruling family from establishing lasting rule as they were constantly under threat of usurpation. Only those kings of Mercia, such as Æthelbald and Offa, who were able to command the political power afforded by new landholding systems and thus to command a large number of followers, were able to avoid these dynastic feuds. Whether gaining control over feud to build authority or using feud as a political strategy against opponents, feud was a central concept in the construction of power in Early Anglo-Saxon England. Copyright by David DiTucci 2017 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people have proven instrumental in helping me to complete this project. My advisor, Robert Berkhofer, not only helped me to think about power, but always pushed me to be a better historian and to think about the broader implications of my research. Jana Schulman was always there to check my Old English and my ideas about Anglo-Saxon England; we’ve had many extended conversations about the translation of individual lines, which had the fortunate result of forcing me to check my conceptualizations. James Palmitessa forced me to step back and look at the big picture, preventing me from drowning in details. Rozanne Elder’s careful editing always helped to make sure I was clear and that I was communicating what was intended. Lemont Dobson introduced me to the archaeological sources and helped me work through the changing nature of power in the period. And, although he was not able to see the end of this project, Thomas Amos introduced me both to the concept of ethnogenesis and to the level of intellectual rigor required for working with early medieval sources. I cannot fail to mention the contributions of the many friends and colleagues who have suffered through reading drafts, hearing descriptions of this project, listening to presentations, and have otherwise helped me in the completion of this project. Most importantly, I must acknowledge the role that my wonderful wife Krista played in my completion of this project. She not only tolerated the time I spent on it, but pushed me to completion. I could not have done it without her, or without our boys, Alex and Dominic. David DiTucci ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. ii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION. 1 Defining Feud. 5 Methods and Approach. 9 Sources.. 24 Historiography. 28 Organization . 39 II FEUD IN ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND. 41 Legal Texts . 44 Beowulf. 57 Other Sources.. 66 Conclusions. 91 III THE EMERGENCE OF CHIEFDOMS IN THE MIGRATION PERIOD.. 93 Chieftains and Kings. 94 Clovis. 106 The Earliest Anglo-Saxon Rulers. 115 Conclusions. 119 IV CONSOLIDATION OF POWER IN THE CONVERSION PERIOD.. 122 iii CHAPTER Æthelberht, Authority, and Kentish Ethnogenesis.. 134 Æthelfrith. 154 Redwald and Edwin. 161 Conclusions. 167 V THE TRANSFORMATION OF VIOLENCE IN THE LATER CONVERSION PERIOD. 171 Law and the Growing Distinction between King and Kin.. 173 Royal Rivalries, Royal Feuds.. 184 The Church and Violence. 198 Conclusions. 211 VI ROYAL RIVALRIES AFTER THE CONVERSION PERIOD.. 214 Northumbrian Royal Rivalries: Death by Violence in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. 217 Cynewulf and Cyneheard: Royal Rivalry in Wessex.. 229 The Mercian Hegemony.. 236 Conclusions. 249 VII CONCLUSIONS. 256 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 269 Primary Sources. 269 Secondary Sources. 273 iv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In 686, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the West Saxon king Cædwalla and his brother Mul attacked Kent, a neighboring Anglo-Saxon kingdom. During the next year, the people of Kent retaliated against this attack by burning Mul and twelve other West Saxons. Cædwalla, seeking vengeance, attacked and plundered Kent again that same year. Soon thereafter, however, the king traveled to Rome to be baptized by the pope, and died there before returning to Britain. In 694, the Kentish people settled the conflict with Cædwalla’s successor, Ine, for the burning of Mul by offering 30,000 pounds,1 equivalent to a king’s wergeld according to Mercian law.2 This payment suggests that the parties involved in the conflict viewed it as a bloodfeud – the conflict included not only retaliation on both sides, but the payment of a wergeld to terminate it. The story of Cædwalla and Mul is one of many in the body of Anglo-Saxon historical and literary records that indicates that feud (Old English fæhð/fæhþ)3 was so pervasive a concept in the Anglo-Saxon imagination that conflicts in general were often presented in those terms. Although the definition of feud used by authors in the Anglo-Saxon period may have been 1. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle E, a.786-794; The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. Susan Irvine, vol. 7, The Anglo- Saxon Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition, ed. David Dumville and Simon Keynes (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2004), 41-42. While the E version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is late, the sections relevant to this study were written during the reign of Alfred (871-899) and form the basis of all versions of the Chronicle. Using modern editions which present the different versions alongside each other, the similarities and differences between the versions become readily apparent. Interestingly, the word fæhð does not appear in any version. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. and trans. Michael Swanton (New York: Routledge, 1998); The Dictionary of Old English Corpus, ed. Antonette di Paolo Healey, s.v. “fæhð,” http://quod.lib.umich.edu.libproxy.library.wmich.edu/cgi/o/oec/ (accessed June 17, 2008). 2. Be Mircna Laga, 2; Felix Liebermann, ed., Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, vol. 1 (Halle, 1903–1916), 462. 3. In Old English, the letters ð and þ are often interchangeable, so fæhð may at times appear as fæhþ. 2 different from modern scholarly definitions, an examination of uses of the term fæhð/fæhþ makes it clear that the concept of feud played an important role in Old English society and culture. Through an examination of the sources that either use the term fæhð/fæhþ or describe feuds, I intend to demonstrate the political and cultural importance of feud in early Anglo-Saxon England. The feud not only provides a theoretical framework for the understanding of conflict among the early Anglo-Saxons, but also constitutes a prominent theme in the body of sources that survive from Anglo-Saxon England.