History, Department of History Theses University of Puget Sound Year 2016 Sanctuary Burning: The St. Brice's Day Massacre and the Danes in England Under Aethelred the Unready Erica Thomas [email protected] This paper is posted at Sound Ideas. http://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/history theses/18 1 Erica Thomas History 400 Professor Douglas Sackman March 28, 2016 Sanctuary Burning: The St. Brice’s Day Massacre and the Danes in England under Aethelred the Unready In 1004 King Aethelred the Unready of England was fighting a desperate war against the Danish Vikings who threatened to conquer his land. A large swath of the Northeastern countryside was already ruled by King Swein Forkbeard of Denmark, and the English situation was uncertain. However, Aethelred had at least one victory to report: a group of Danes had barricaded themselves in an Oxfordshire church to escape their English pursuers, and the English had taken full advantage of the situation by burning the church and all it contained to the ground. What may have seemed a victory at the time was deemed a “treacherous plot” in later years.1 The Anglo-Norman chronicler Henry of Huntingdon described how Aethelred committed this “crime” by secretly ordering the English to either hack to pieces or else burn alive “all the unsuspecting Danes,” this group apparently including the Danish residents of several cities.2 The attack took place on the day of the feast of St. Brice, and was later dubbed the St. Brice’s Day Massacre. Due to the scarcity of contemporary sources, and the ambiguities of those which do exist, the historical narrative that has emerged in the literature provides a shortsighted view of the Massacre. The abundance and concurrent arguments of the Anglo-Norman chronicles, added to 1 Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum, trans. Diana Greenway (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 341. 2 Henry of Huntingdon, 341. 2 the vagaries of the early written records, has led many scholars to ignore the wide array of possible events which may have taken place in Oxford in 1002. In order to fully understand these, several sources must be examined. First, the few available contemporary sources. Then, one must analyze the Anglo-Norman sources, their biases and their sources. Third, a broader scope of evidence including Anglo-Saxon law and the archaeological record should be included. Once all of these elements have been studied, the scholar may enumerate the many possible situations which the sources may be describing. A thorough examination of the ambiguities in the record and their implications shed new light on the historical significance of the St. Brice’s Day Massacre. The Earliest Records Contemporary records of the St. Brice’s Day Massacre were sparse and contradictory in detailing the event, leaving the reader with very little evidence as to the nature of the events of St. Brice’s Day. The earliest description of the Massacre was written in 1004, two years after the commonly given date for the Massacre itself (1002). This first record, a charter written by King Aethelred concerning the rebuilding of the St. Frideswide’s church in Oxford, demonstrates that the Massacre was not as infamous in its own time as it became later. The full description of the event runs as follows: To all dwelling it this country it will be well known that, since a decree was sent out by me with the councel [sic] of my leading men and magnates, to the effect that all the Danes who had sprung up in this island, sprouting like cockle amongst the wheat, were to be destroyed by a most just extermination, and this decree was to be put into effect even as far as death, those Danes who dwelt in the afore-mentioned town, striving to escape death, entered this sanctuary of Christ, having broken by force the doors and bolts, and resolved to make a refuge and defence for themselves therin against the people of the town and the suburbs; 3 but when all the people in pursuit strove, forced by necessity, to drive them out, and could not, they set fire to the planks and burnt, as it seems, this church with its ornaments and its books.3 Aethelred described sending out a “decree” of rather vague character, stating that the Danes in England should be “destroyed.” The decree itself is not extant, and thus its particulars can only be guessed at. This is perhaps the most frustrating gap in the textual sources, and necessitates speculation to be a key component in almost any analysis of the Massacre. In studying this event, it is crucial to distinguish between what Aethelred claimed to have ordered done, and what he said actually transpired. In describing his decree against the Danes, Aethelred reported having ordered “all the Danes who had sprung up in this island” to be destroyed, implying a nationwide order pertaining to the entirety of England. This language has often lead to later accounts and discussions of the Massacre assuming that the event consisted of a massive bout of anti-Danish violence encompassing large swaths of England.4 However, although Aethelred described having ordered a slaughter throughout England, the only violence actually reported by any contemporary source as having transpired is the burning of the church in Oxford. Aethelred himself did not claim that any violence took place outside of Oxford, but only that he ordered it to be done. Aethelred’s language was also crucial in his description of the participants in the Massacre. There are two distinct groups which must be identified in interpreting this event: the pursuers and the victims. Aethelred provided a general description of the pursuers, stating that the Danes had fled to the church in order to “make a refuge and defence for themselves therin 3 King Aethelred II, “Renewal by King Ethelred for the Monestary of St. Frideswide,” in English Historical Documents Vol. I: c. 500-1042 by Dorothy Whitelock, vol. 1 of English Historical Documents, ed. David C. Douglas, (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1955), 545. 4 E.g. Williams, Aethelred the Unready, 53; Ian Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions and the Danish Conquest of England, 991-1017 (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2003), 61-64. 4 against the people of the town and suburbs.” Aethelred thus identified the pursuers as local to Oxford. It is easy to assume from this quotation that Aethelred was describing a mob consisting of local villagers, that is, ordinary people rather than soldiers. However, there are still several possibilities within Aethelred’s identification that must be kept in mind in any attempt to reconstruct the Massacre. First, Aethelred never said whether the “people of the town and suburbs” consisted solely of local men, or whether women and children were also involved in the pursuit. Secondly, he did not identify the pursuers as ‘ordinary people’ or as a certain social group, but only as local to the area. Thus we do not know whether those involved were the general population of Oxford, or only a specific group such as the local law enforcement. Thirdly, he did not describe the pursuit itself as either spontaneous or organized, in other words we do not know whether the Massacre was strategically planned or the result of a sudden flaring of ethnic tensions. Yet each of these possible circumstances radically alters the historical significance of the event, and it is extremely important to take these ambiguities into account when describing the Massacre. Aethelred was even vaguer in identifying the victims of the Massacre. He simply stated that “those Danes who dwelt” in Oxford were the targets of the violence. In 1002 several different classes of Danes were living in and around England, and Aethelred may have included any or all of these groups in his classification of “Danes.” First, there were peasants, either Danish or descended from Danes who had been settling on the English and Scottish coasts since the 800s.5 Second, there were Swein’s Danish soldiers, who conducted periodic raids on coastal areas and those bordering the Danelaw.6 Third, there were Danish mercenaries, employed by 5 Dawn Hadley, “Scandanavian Settlement,” in A Companion to the Early Middle Ages: Britain and Ireland, c. 500- c. 1100, ed. Pauline Stafford (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 212. 6 E. g. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, trans. Whitelock, 82-83. 5 Aethelred himself to fight against Swein Forkbeard.7 Furthermore, the class of “Danes” who were killed in Oxford may or may not have been the same as those who Aethelred intended as the victims of his 1002 decree. Finally, Aethelred claimed that the events in Oxford were the direct result of his decree against the Danes in 1002. However, the decree is explicitly described as pertaining to all of England, and we have already established that the only documented violence was a single event in Oxford. Further, Aethelred himself named local people, not an army raised in another part of the country, as the pursuers of the Danes. Thus, in relating the Massacre directly to his decree against the Danes, Aethelred was describing his order as such an effective display of rhetoric that a local group purged their town of some class of Danes simply because they had heard of or received it. However, the same order would have been received very differently across the rest of England, since no disturbances or violence of a similar character was reported in other areas by any contemporary source. These contradictory claims leave several possible explanations open: first, Aethelred’s order may have been prevented from being distributed outside of the region of Oxford. Secondly, there may have been some particular quality about Oxford - left unrecorded at the time - that made it more amenable to anti-Danish rhetoric or more capable of carrying out violence.