Généalogie and Heritage

Source: Anglo Saxon Queens - Penda's Queen Cynewise

Description

Type	Valeur
Titre	Anglo Saxon Queens - Penda's Queen Cynewise

Entrées associées à cette source

Personnes
Queen CYNEWISE of Mercia

Texte


Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum is invaluable as a source. It is available in a user-friendly edition from Penguin; the usual scholarly edition is edited by Colgrave & Mynors, which I quote from here. On concubinage, Margret Clunies Ross’s article is invaluable. Carol Braun Pasternack’s chapter, ‘Negotiating Gender in Anglo-Saxon England’ is useful, as are the overviews of queenship in Pauline Stafford’s Queens, Concubines and Dowagers, and, more recently, Theresa Earenfight’s Queenship in Medieval Europe, especially the first two chapters. On naming practices, a good overview is available in Cecily Clark’s chapter in The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol I. More widely accessible is Peter Kitson’s article, ‘How Anglo-Saxon Personal Names Work’ in Nomina.

Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum is invaluable as a source. It is available in a user-friendly edition from Penguin; the usual scholarly edition is edited by Colgrave & Mynors, which I quote from here.

On concubinage, Margret Clunies Ross’s article is invaluable. Carol Braun Pasternack’s chapter, ‘Negotiating Gender in Anglo-Saxon England’ is useful, as are the overviews of queenship in Pauline Stafford’s Queens, Concubines and Dowagers, and, more recently, Theresa Earenfight’s Queenship in Medieval Europe, especially the first two chapters.

On naming practices, a good overview is available in Cecily Clark’s chapter in The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol I. More widely accessible is Peter Kitson’s article, ‘How Anglo-Saxon Personal Names Work’ in Nomina.

Médias

URL

Notes


King Penda (r. 626-655) has been in the news recently. Scholars working on the Staffordshire Hoard have been circling in on the ‘bold’ interpretation that the Hoard may be linked with the famous seventh-century Mercian king. Primarily a collection of war-materials, including many sword hilts, pieces of a helmet, and many other yet-to-be-identified pieces, it offers new light on the warrior elite and material culture of the seventh century. By contrast, the queens of the seventh century are relatively obscure in the historical record. There’s Bertha, the famous wife of Æthelberht of Kent (r. 589 – 616), probably the first Christian queen in Britain in centuries. Bede also tells us of the wise wife of Rædwald of East Anglia (r. 599-624). Though he does not record her name, he recounts how she dissuaded her husband from abandoning a pledge to protect an exile in favour of money, even though she was a pagan herself (HE II. 12). Yet perhaps the most tantalizing queen of the seventh century in Bede’s Historia is the wife of Penda of Mercia, Cynewise. Penda is one of Bede’s most significant villains in the Historia Ecclesiastica. The eighth-century historian and polymath regarded Penda as a ruthless pagan warlord who had the audacity to ally himself with other Christians at times, and who was responsible for the deaths of several dearly beloved and, more importantly, Christian, kings and princes of Northumbria. When one looks at the list of Penda’s offspring, supposed or otherwise, one is inclined to agree with Bede’s assessment of him as uiro strenuissimo. They feature no fewer than four kings of Mercia and other nearby sub-kingdoms, as well as several saintly daughters: Merewalh, king of the Magonsætan; Æthelred, king of Mercia; Wulfhere, king of Mercia; Peada, king of the Middle Angles; Cyneburh andCyneswith, sainted sisters; and possibly Wilburg, thought to be the mother of St Osgyth. Cynewise was herself a remarkable woman. Bede records that during the battle of Winwæd, a key battle in the ongoing struggles between Mercia and Northumbria, she kept a certain Northumbrian prince, the future king Ecgfrith, hostage elsewhere (HE III.24). Whilst this explains Ecgfrith’s notable absence in the list of participants in the battle, it also gestures to the power and ability of this great queen. Queens in this era were typically the keeper of the royal household, with all of the duties that entailed, including gift-giving, negotiating, hostage-keeping, providing adequate provisions, dealing with the royal coffers, raising and educating her children, and, from time to time, protecting their interests. An eighth-century queen, Æthelburg, is recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as destroying Taunton. Another main concern of a queen was her offspring and their rights to inherit. This was presumably even more the case in the pre-Christian period, as primogeniture was yet far from normal practice. Instead, the splitting up of lands among sons was common in most of northern Europe in the seventh century, and in pre-Conquest England, succession practice tended to favour adults capable of leading war over children or regents. In that respect, Cynewise may at first appear to be extraordinarily successful: four of Penda’s sons became kings, and at least a further daughter was married to a prince of a neighbouring kingdom. However, it is far from certain that all of Penda’s children were also Cynewise’s. Monogamy was not considered an essential practice in the seventh century, and kings and other high-status nobles could take several wives or keep concubines. In part, this relates to traditional Germanic practices, in which status was linked to the numberof wives and children a man could claim. There are several indirect references to concubinage in early and later laws, which suggests that although concubinage was probably more prevalent nearer to the adventus Saxonum, it was by no means confined to this earlier period and was certainly not eradicated by the coming of Christianity. There is also the question of the names of Penda’s offspring. Naming practice in this era often served to illustrate ancestry and family relationships, typically using alliteration as a kinship marker. This could be passed along maternal or paternal lines, although it is far easier for historians to trace paternal ancestry because the names of men are recorded in far greater numbers than those of women. A child’s name might repeat part of a parent’s name which taken separately could be recognised as a word, also known as a deuterotheme. When considered this way, the names of Penda’s offspring could be seen to cluster into some distinct groups: Peada, presumably Penda’s eldest, given his co-rule of the Middle Angles in his father’s lifetime, alliterates with the name of his father. Cyneburh and Cyneswith carry the same first deuterotheme as the name of their mother, Cynewise. Wulfhere and the possible Wilburh alliterate on W. Though it is difficult to know precisely the birth dates of any of these, Peada was considered old enough to rule by 653, whereas his brother who was set up in rebellion against Northumbrian rule was just a young boy in 658; after Wulfhere’s death in 675, Æthelred took the throne until his abdication in 704. Clustered as they are, it seems sound to suggest that Cyneburg and Cyneswith were definitely the children of Cynewise and Penda. The identity of Peada’s mother seems less certain that Peada, especially given the detail that Alhfrith of Northumbria, Oswiu’s son, was Peada’s brother-in-law, as he had married ‘Penda’s daughter, Cyneburh’ (HE III. XXI). It seems therefore possible that Penda’s children had more than one mother, and that only one, Cynewise, was recognised as queen. Perhaps Peada was born of anearlier marriage; perhaps there were several women by whom Penda fathered his children. If so, at least one other with a name beginning in W- is a reasonable postulation. The source for this information, such that it is, must be considered in terms of its own aims and biases. It is also possible that Bede has not included the names of other women as part of his anti-Mercian, Christian bias, but given what is known, concubines could easily explain the names and number of Penda’s offspring. What became of Cynewise is not known; Penda was killed at the battle of Winwæd in 655, and in the aftermath of his death, rule of Mercia was seized by the Northumbrian dynasty. It was only in 658 that rule returned to Penda’s line. Bede reports: Three years after King Penda’s death the ealdormen of the Mercian race, Immin, Eafa and Eadberht, rebelled against Kign Oswiu [of Northumbria] and set up as their king Wulfhere, Penda’s young son, whom they had kept concealed; and having driven out the ealdormen of the foreign king, they boldly recovered their lands and their liberty at the same time. Bede, HE III. 24 Cynewise appears nowhere in this narrative. Given that she had the ability to keep hostage a major political figure during her husband’s lifetime, it would seem strange that she appears to have played no role in the Mercian rebellion against Oswiu. It seems plausible that she too may have passed away in the intervening period.

King Penda (r. 626-655) has been in the news recently. Scholars working on the Staffordshire Hoard have been circling in on the ‘bold’ interpretation that the Hoard may be linked with the famous seventh-century Mercian king. Primarily a collection of war-materials, including many sword hilts, pieces of a helmet, and many other yet-to-be-identified pieces, it offers new light on the warrior elite and material culture of the seventh century.

By contrast, the queens of the seventh century are relatively obscure in the historical record. There’s Bertha, the famous wife of Æthelberht of Kent (r. 589 – 616), probably the first Christian queen in Britain in centuries. Bede also tells us of the wise wife of Rædwald of East Anglia (r. 599-624). Though he does not record her name, he recounts how she dissuaded her husband from abandoning a pledge to protect an exile in favour of money, even though she was a pagan herself (HE II. 12). Yet perhaps the most tantalizing queen of the seventh century in Bede’s Historia is the wife of Penda of Mercia, Cynewise.

Penda is one of Bede’s most significant villains in the Historia Ecclesiastica. The eighth-century historian and polymath regarded Penda as a ruthless pagan warlord who had the audacity to ally himself with other Christians at times, and who was responsible for the deaths of several dearly beloved and, more importantly, Christian, kings and princes of Northumbria. When one looks at the list of Penda’s offspring, supposed or otherwise, one is inclined to agree with Bede’s assessment of him as uiro strenuissimo. They feature no fewer than four kings of Mercia and other nearby sub-kingdoms, as well as several saintly daughters: Merewalh, king of the Magonsætan; Æthelred, king of Mercia; Wulfhere, king of Mercia; Peada, king of the Middle Angles; Cyneburh andCyneswith, sainted sisters; and possibly Wilburg, thought to be the mother of St Osgyth.

Cynewise was herself a remarkable woman. Bede records that during the battle of Winwæd, a key battle in the ongoing struggles between Mercia and Northumbria, she kept a certain Northumbrian prince, the future king Ecgfrith, hostage elsewhere (HE III.24). Whilst this explains Ecgfrith’s notable absence in the list of participants in the battle, it also gestures to the power and ability of this great queen. Queens in this era were typically the keeper of the royal household, with all of the duties that entailed, including gift-giving, negotiating, hostage-keeping, providing adequate provisions, dealing with the royal coffers, raising and educating her children, and, from time to time, protecting their interests. An eighth-century queen, Æthelburg, is recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as destroying Taunton.

Another main concern of a queen was her offspring and their rights to inherit. This was presumably even more the case in the pre-Christian period, as primogeniture was yet far from normal practice. Instead, the splitting up of lands among sons was common in most of northern Europe in the seventh century, and in pre-Conquest England, succession practice tended to favour adults capable of leading war over children or regents.
In that respect, Cynewise may at first appear to be extraordinarily successful: four of Penda’s sons became kings, and at least a further daughter was married to a prince of a neighbouring kingdom. However, it is far from certain that all of Penda’s children were also Cynewise’s.

Monogamy was not considered an essential practice in the seventh century, and kings and other high-status nobles could take several wives or keep concubines. In part, this relates to traditional Germanic practices, in which status was linked to the numberof wives and children a man could claim. There are several indirect references to concubinage in early and later laws, which suggests that although concubinage was probably more prevalent nearer to the adventus Saxonum, it was by no means confined to this earlier period and was certainly not eradicated by the coming of Christianity.

There is also the question of the names of Penda’s offspring. Naming practice in this era often served to illustrate ancestry and family relationships, typically using alliteration as a kinship marker. This could be passed along maternal or paternal lines, although it is far easier for historians to trace paternal ancestry because the names of men are recorded in far greater numbers than those of women. A child’s name might repeat part of a parent’s name which taken separately could be recognised as a word, also known as a deuterotheme.

When considered this way, the names of Penda’s offspring could be seen to cluster into some distinct groups: Peada, presumably Penda’s eldest, given his co-rule of the Middle Angles in his father’s lifetime, alliterates with the name of his father. Cyneburh and Cyneswith carry the same first deuterotheme as the name of their mother, Cynewise. Wulfhere and the possible Wilburh alliterate on W. Though it is difficult to know precisely the birth dates of any of these, Peada was considered old enough to rule by 653, whereas his brother who was set up in rebellion against Northumbrian rule was just a young boy in 658; after Wulfhere’s death in 675, Æthelred took the throne until his abdication in 704.

Clustered as they are, it seems sound to suggest that Cyneburg and Cyneswith were definitely the children of Cynewise and Penda. The identity of Peada’s mother seems less certain that Peada, especially given the detail that Alhfrith of Northumbria, Oswiu’s son, was Peada’s brother-in-law, as he had married ‘Penda’s daughter, Cyneburh’ (HE III. XXI). It seems therefore possible that Penda’s children had more than one mother, and that only one, Cynewise, was recognised as queen. Perhaps Peada was born of anearlier marriage; perhaps there were several women by whom Penda fathered his children. If so, at least one other with a name beginning in W- is a reasonable postulation. The source for this information, such that it is, must be considered in terms of its own aims and biases. It is also possible that Bede has not included the names of other women as part of his anti-Mercian, Christian bias, but given what is known, concubines could easily explain the names and number of Penda’s offspring.

What became of Cynewise is not known; Penda was killed at the battle of Winwæd in 655, and in the aftermath of his death, rule of Mercia was seized by the Northumbrian dynasty. It was only in 658 that rule returned to Penda’s line. Bede reports:

Three years after King Penda’s death the ealdormen of the Mercian race, Immin, Eafa and Eadberht, rebelled against Kign Oswiu [of Northumbria] and set up as their king Wulfhere, Penda’s young son, whom they had kept concealed; and having driven out the ealdormen of the foreign king, they boldly recovered their lands and their liberty at the same time.

Bede, HE III. 24
Cynewise appears nowhere in this narrative. Given that she had the ability to keep hostage a major political figure during her husband’s lifetime, it would seem strange that she appears to have played no role in the Mercian rebellion against Oswiu. It seems plausible that she too may have passed away in the intervening period.