Apocalypse and Atonement in the Politics of Æthelredian England
This paper discusses contemporary responses to the events of the reign of King Æthelred II (“the Unready”) of England (978–1016). It focuses on two particularly well-evidenced interpretations of the tribulations of the age: the penitential view of these as divine punishment, which might be lifted by an appropriate form of atonement; and the apocalyptic view of them as signs of the approaching Last Judgement and end of time. These have traditionally been treated as distinct and mutually exclusive lines of interpretation; however, it is argued here that they were, in fact, intimately related. On this basis, it is suggested that a closer connection existed between penitential and eschatological thought in the early and central Middle Ages than has hitherto been appreciated.
A Watchman on the Walls: Ezekiel and Reaction to Invasion in Anglo-Saxon England
During the Viking Age, the Christian Anglo-Saxons in England found warnings and solace in the biblical text of Ezekiel. In this text, the God of Israel delivers a dual warning: first, the sins of the people call upon themselves divine wrath; second, it is incumbent upon God’s messenger to warn the people of their extreme danger, or else find their blood on his hands. This thesis examines how the Anglo-Saxon applied Ezekiel’s warnings to their own cultural crisis. It begins with the early development of this philosophy by the Britons in the 500s, its adoption by the Anglo-Saxons, Irish, and Franks in the later centuries, and how the Carolingians modified it during their political reform movement and reintroduced it to England when it was most needed: during the darkest days of the 9 th -century Viking invasions of England. From there, Ezekiel’s warnings are traced through the following century and a half as the English flush their oppressors from the island, but then are finally conquered by a Christian Viking, who in turn takes to heart the call to repent or face God’s judgment. ©2016 by Max Brinson All Rights Reserved
The coronation charter of 1100: a postponement of decision. What did not happen in Henry I's reign
The charter issued by Henry I on his coronation in 1100 has been regarded since Stubb's time as a prefigurement of Magna Carta, since it restricted the rights of the monarch. It has also been seen as a cunning political manoeuvre designed to strengthen the shaky position of Henry I during the tense days and months following the death of William Rufus. The present article does not set out to undermine either of these two positions. The charter played a part in the discussions between the king, the Church and the barons in 1135, 1154 and 1213. There was no such discussion in 1100 when the charter was formulated. At that earlier date the role of the monarch was predominant, as it had been since 1066. As yet the Church and the barons had no active part to play.