THE ANTIQUARIAN: The Glorious Revolution & the Galway Prisoners

IRELAND & THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION

In 1685, King Charles II of England died and his Catholic brother, James, ascended the throne.  As a result, positions of power in Ireland were re-possessed by Catholics and members of the Protestant gentry in the south (already a minority), who did not immigrate to England, or transplant themselves north, began to organize themselves into defensive positions in the larger country houses (Wright & Warren).  Aristocrats in England, also fearing the consequences of rule under a Catholic King, formally invited the Dutch Prince of Orange to become King William III and by February of 1689 “The Glorious Revolution” put an end to what many at the time referred to as the Romanizing of England.

THE MARCH TO SLIGO

Soon after, on 1^st March 1689 (just before James II landed in Ireland with 5000 French troops to join an Irish army of 50,000 men, as part of a Jacobite plan to re-take the English throne) about 200 gentleman of Cork, along with their tenants and servants, responded to a program of Protestant disarmament by deciding to march north and join Lord Kingston’s forces at Sligo. 

The group, led by Sir Thomas Southwell and several old officers, met at Mallow and then headed in the direction of Limerick.  After a few successful encounters, including an exchange of fire at Brian’s Bridge in County Clare, intelligence of the march spread; as they approached Galway, in need of both food and water, they encountered several troop of horse advancing toward them.

 It suddenly became clear that their guide had led them into an ambush, and the group found themselves cut off, on a narrow passage, in the middle of a bog just outside Loughrea, surrounded by a company of men on either side of them; this included, several troops of King James’s horse in front as well as four to five hundred militia men behind.  Before being forced to halt, shots were exchanged and one of Southwell’s group, Morgan Williams, was killed.

 Finally, unable to form themselves into any cohesive defense, the group halted.

CAPTAIN BARTHOLOMEW PURDON & CATHERINE GUN*

In the chaos that preceded the surrender, chronicles of the event cite the behaviour of two of Southwell’s party: Captain Bartholomew Purdon & Catherine Gun.

An eyewitness account records that, either through loss of temper or through a calculated attempt to reduce the lopsided confrontation down to a single win or lose combat, Captain Bartholomew Purdon of Ballyclough, with his pistol in one hand and his sword in the other, spurred his horse toward the troop of horse in front of them and challenged its commander, Captain Burke, to a duel. This, the commander refused and after some bickering, negotiation ensued. 

It may have been during some of this bickering or, perhaps, it may have been Catherine Gun, herself, who prior to this had inspired Purdon’s charge, because eyewitness accounts state that she was one of the most vocal against surrender.  Miss Hickson’s Old Kerry Records states that after another of Southwell’s party, Captain Thomas Miller, had cried out “Gentlemen you have the sword before and the gallows behind”(17), Catherine entreated all to “fight and die honourably rather than trust to the mercy of a perfidious enemy”(Wright & Warren, 118). 

Catherine was the only woman who had attended the march, refusing to stay behind, and, dressed in men’s clothing, was described as mounted amazon-like in her saddle (Burke, 51).  One legend of her recorded that she and her husband had been in some place that had been besieged and forced to surrender.  After terms had been reached, all the women present were allowed to leave, carrying their valuables; observing these requirements, Catherine subsequently declared that the only valuable she wished to take was her gun and to this end immediately scooped up her husband, William Gun of Rattoo, County Kerry, and, upon her back, carried him off with her (Burke, 117).

SURRENDER & INCARCERATION

According to the official articles of surrender, Southwell, Purdon and Captain Miller agreed to “lay down such horse and arms, as was fit for the king’s service” to James Power, High Sheriff of Galway, and Captain Burke, commander of the King’s Horse (Burke, 65); in return, members of Southwell’s party would be allowed to retain their own personal arms, one horse each and granted safe passage to any place except their original destination of Sligo.

After being halted a week at Loughrea, however, it became apparent that the terms of the treaty were not being upheld, and, as a result of a court hearing held soon afterward, the gentlemen in the party were placed, against their will, in private lodgings, while their tenants and servants were forced to live, without shelter, outside. 

The landing of King James in Ireland precipitated another appearance in court on the 16^th of March, and it was at this point that the members of Southwell’s group were officially declared traitors and sentenced to a traitor’s death of being hanged, drawn and quartered. 

Once again placed in different locations about the town, which included a public house, a castle, and a marshalsea (Wright & Warren, 190), the Galway prisoners spent the next months in varying degrees of comfort; they later reported being well treated by their captors some of the time, abused in different ways at other times and, in one instance, assured by the Earl of Clanricarde’s men that they were only hours from torture and death.

By the beginning of 1690, however, they were moved back south to Dublin and, while James was confronting William of Orange at the Boyne, three hundred members of Southwell’s group were locked inside a small church to await the outcome of a battle that would decide the fate of both themselves and the future United Kingdom.

One eyewitness reported that it was from the windows of this church that they observed the chaotic retreat of what was left of James’s army rushing through the city streets toward Limerick, followed soon after by the company of guards standing watch outside their church prison.

After eighteen months of captivity, the ordeal of the Galway prisoners was over.

Burke, Oliver Joseph.  Anecdotes of the Connaught Circuit. Dublin: Hodges, Figgis &

            Co., 1885

Hickson, Mary Agnes. Selections from Old Kerry Records. London: Watson & Hazell,

            1872.

Townsend et al. An Officer of the Long Parliament & His Descendants. London: Oxford University Press, 1812.

Wright, Thomas & Henry Warren. History of Ireland; From the Earliest Period of the Irish Annals, to the Present Time. London: J. Tallis & Company, 1854.

*It is worth noting that both of these individuals were the children of prominent officers in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, whom Oliver Cromwell distinguished as being instrumental in the return and keeping of both Cork & Youghal for the parliamentarians (Townsend, 83).  Catherine Gun was the daughter of Colonel Richard Townsend & Captain Bartholomew Purdon was the eldest son and heir of Sir Nicholas Purdon, which some historical accounts record as the officer who killed the famed Alasdair MacColla after the battle of Knockanass.

THE ANTIQUARIAN: Agincourt

Taking advantage of faction war in France during the summer of 1415, King Henry V of England planned to press his claim to the French throne by accomplishing a swift take over of the coastal port of Harfleur and then, in a symbolic gesture, storming through the formerly held English territory of Normandy on his way to English held Calais.

Since Harfleur took longer to fall then expected and since its eventual take over unified warring factions in France, Henry V’s triumphant march to Calais turned into a dysentery filled attempt to escape a superior French force that was bent on their destruction.

By the time the two forces met just outside the town of Agincourt, Henry’s army had dwindled to a force of 7000 sick and weakened soldiers.  Across the field, the might of the French army stood ready with numbers estimated at 30,000 strong.  One English scout reported back to his commander, “you are just about to fight against a world of innumerable people” (Fiennes, 192).

For hours the two armies eyed each other, neither wanting to make the first move.  Then Henry ordered his army to march steadily forward in a straight line; when the column was within 700 metres of the enemy, the English archers hammered their 6 foot stakes into the ground and waited for the command to fire. 

As a means to insure that they would never be a threat to France again, the over-confident French army had vowed to cut-off the two key active fingers of any English archer captured alive; so, as a final act of defiance, each man now held two fingers up to the great French host, daring them to come and collect their prize.  When the order to fire was finally given, 5000 skilled archers sent volley after volley into the air; the French charged and, within the first 90 minutes of the battle, 8000 Frenchmen were killed.

It is believed that the deciding factors in England’s stunning victory at Agincourt were the awesome killing power of the English longbow, and a terrain which worked against the great numbers of the French army, funneling them into a killing corridor that also created a crowd effect, as knights in heavy armour lost their footing in the mud of freshly plowed, rain-soaked fields, line upon line of them were pulverized by the English directly in front as well as crushed by a continuous surge of their own attacking troops from behind.

From the French perspective the chronicler Pierre Cochon recorded that the defeat “was the ugliest and most wretched event that happened in France over the last one thousand years” (Fiennes, 235).  The nobility of France, who had made up a disproportionately large part of the French army, were decimated: entire dynasties were wiped out as family members, often covering two generations of a family, were killed (Fiennes, 233). 

For Henry V, King of England, the victory set the stage for his recognition as heir-apparent to the French throne and regent of France.

Fiennes, Ranulph.  Agincourt: My Family, the Battle, and the Fight for France.  London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2014.

THE ANTIQUARIAN: Vasili Arkhipova, The Man Who Saved the World

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, a fleet of four Russian submarines were armed with nuclear weapons and stationed off the coast of Cuba.  The subs did not need permission from Moscow to launch their "special" weapons―instead three men on site had to agree, including Commander Arkhipova who had veto power.

After being harassed by American destroyers above, thinking war had been declared and low on batteries, the decision was made by two of the three men to launch the nuclear weapons.  It was only Vasili Arkhipova's staunch refusal that saved the world from nuclear annihilation.

Commander Vasili Arkhipova

Arkhipova ordered the subs to surface and surrender to the Americans.  The subs were never boarded but held hostage until the crisis had reached a political conclusion; at this point the Americans released the submarines and they returned to Russia.

Instead of being lauded for his courage and humanitarianism, Moscow berated the Commander for shaming the Russian military by surrendering.

THE ANTIQUARIAN: Hair Jewellery

Before the invention of photography, Hair Jewellery was the most practical means to commemorate a loved one by keeping a part of them to wear close to the body.  The example below is a pin that depicts a lady cradling a child near an urn on a pedestal and states: "J.C. obt [died] July the 21st 1785, aged 2 years and 7 months---Not Lost, Gone Before."

from the Anne Louise Luthy collection

The hair has been embedded along the rim of the piece and, as was common practice, may also have been crushed and mixed into the paint that the artist used.


Image and information from "Antiques Uncovered, Episode 3." BBC. 2015

THE ANTIQUARIAN: Tudor Codpiece

According to Beth Marie Kosir, “The codpiece came into existence during the Middle Ages, became popular during the reigns of the Yorkist monarchs in England [and] attained full prominence during the reign of Henry VIII.”  Portraits of Renaissance leaders, such as Francis I and Emperor Charles V, attest to its global appeal. 

The over-sized proportions of Henry VIII’s codpieces support the theory that as a fashion accoutrement, the codpiece represented “a statement of the virility of the individual” (Reed).  Acting also as a whimsical sex promotion object, it helped a man establish his rank among other males in competitive royal courts ranging across Europe.

The codpiece fell out of favour during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I and, unlike many other fashion trends, it is doubtful that it will ever return to common use again.

Kosir, Beth Marie.  “Modesty to Majesty: The Development of the Codpiece.” Richard

     III Society: American Branch.  Web. 22 December 2014.

Reed, C. S.  “The Codpiece: Social Fashion or Medical Need?”  Internal Medicine

     Journal.  2004: 684-686. Print.

THE ANTIQUARIAN: Pope Clement VII & the Art of Non-Decision

Throughout the ages, the politics and power-plays of popes have equaled or surpassed the very best (or worst) of the many secular political disciples of Machiavelli.  A prime example of such papal political maneuvering can be seen in the way Pope Clement VII handled the question of Henry VIII’s application to divorce his first wife, Queen Catherine.

The catalyst behind The Great Matter, as it was known at the time, essentially, involved Henry VIII’s desire to have a legitimate son, his dissatisfaction with his wife’s inability to give him one, and, finally, his ardent desire to marry Anne Boleyn.  For the latter to occur, however, the King of England needed papal permission to divorce the Queen of England, Catherine of Aragon. 

England’s Great Matter, however, generated great personal and political risk for Giulio de’ Medici, also known as Pope Clement VII.  As David Starkey remarks in his book, Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII, the pope had much to fear:  On the one hand, the troops of Catherine of Aragon’s nephew, Emperor Charles V, had just sacked Rome, leaving both the city and the pope at the mercy of an emperor who was actively pressuring him to disallow the divorce; on the other hand, the Lutheran rejection of papal power then taking hold in Germany represented a threat to the papacy itself and Clement was informed that if he did not allow the King of England to get rid of his wife, England would go the way of Germany (Starkey, 217).  On top of all this, the Medici family, to which he belonged, had been driven out of their “hereditary city-state of Florence” and Clement was responsible for saving the family from political oblivion (Starkey, 217).

So, how did Pope Clement VII respond?  The wily Florentine, as Starkey describes him, used prevarication as an art form (217).  With discourse of inordinate length, he confused, exacerbated, and avoided “ever reaching a conclusion;” in so doing, he bought the time he needed to improve his position (Starkey, 217).  Starkey states, Pope Clement “knew every word, in mellifluous Italian or fluent Latin, apart from ‘yes’ and ‘no’” (217).

At last, a Legatine Trial was set-up to deliberate over The Great Matter in England and Henry VIII, frustrated by delay after delay, and desperate to marry Anne Boleyn, was, eventually, forced to decide the matter on his own by breaking off relations with Rome. With the decision made for him, and at a time more advantageous to himself, Clement was now in a better position to, finally, give a definitive response: On 11 July 1533, he excommunicated King Henry VIII of England.

Starkey, David. Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII.  Toronto: Harper Perennial, 2003.

THE ANTIQUARIAN: Princess Nest, the Powerful Beauty

Nest, princess of South Wales, married twice; firstly, to Gerald of Windsor and, secondly, to Stephen, constable of Cardigan; before and during her marriages, she entertained many lovers, King Henry I of England foremost among them.  She is believed to have had twelve children by six different men, her first at the age of 15 and her last at the age of forty-five.  Of her famed allure, Gwen Meredith states, “Her beauty encouraged men to seek her bed, her favours, and her love” (20).

At the age of six, in 1081, Princess Nest was required to act as guarantor to a peace treaty formed between her father, Rhys ap Tewdwr, prince of South Wales, and William the Conqueror, King of England; as part of this arrangement, Nest left Wales to become a member of the royal household in England.  Consequently, it was both as political hostage and as a kind of ward that Nest came to know the future King, prince Henry, and it was through this intimate and familial proximity that the two became lovers.

By the age of 15, Nest had her first child by Prince Henry, a son, the famed Robert of Gloucester; a few years later, she had her first legitimate son, William fitz Gerald, by Gerald, constable of Windsor.  Three more sons followed: By her husband, David and Maurice, and through her continued affair with Henry (now King of England), Henry fitz Henry.

The notoriety of the relationship between Nest and Henry I is illustrated in contemporary records.  The writings of William of Malmesbury and Orderic Vitalis, suggest that the young king was under pressure to give up his “lasciviousness” and “meretricious pleasures,” by consenting to marry another princess, Matilda, the daughter of Malcolm III, King of Scotland.  This marriage occurred in the same year as the illegitimate birth of Henry’s second son, by Nest, Henry fitz Henry (Meredith, 16).

The chroniclers record that the King of England “ardently desired” the high-born Scottish maiden; however, his ardour for her did not seem to stem his lust for Nest; their child was conceived at either the time the marriage to Matilda was being negotiated, or after its completion and, most astonishingly, while the former Welsh princess was visiting Henry at his place of residence.  As Meredith states, “the records for 1100 do not indicate that Henry traveled into Wales where Nest resided at Pembroke with her husband” (16).

The incident demonstrates the independence of Nest, who was able to “keep lovers and husband separate, contented, and on mutually friendly terms” (Meredith, 16).  As Meredith explains, she “had to leave her husband’s bed, visit Henry, have relations with him, return home, give birth to the king’s child, and not worry about earning either her husband’s or the Church’s displeasure”(16).  Where it concerned the king, then, it appears that Nest must have had an arrangement with her husband and that, along with physical motivations, the affair was part of a stratagem meant to secure a formidable power base for her own household and that of her longtime lover.

In fact, contemporary documents illustrate that both the legitimate and illegitimate offspring of Henry I and Nest supported each other throughout their lives, and that these relationships were fostered and encouraged by all concerned.  According to Meredith, there is ample proof that Queen Matilda received her husband’s illegitimate children at court and encouraged their association with her own children (22).

The practical benefit of this endeavour is most famously demonstrated through Robert of Gloucester, the illegitimate son of Nest, by Henry, who championed the royal cause of his half-sister, Matilda; ultimately, this led to the ascension to the throne by Matilda’s son, Henry II, whom Robert accompanied on his first crossing to England (Meredith, 22).  Likewise, a generation later, it was the son of Robert and grandson of Nest, William, who “interceded with Henry II” on behalf of Robert fitz Stephen, Nest’s son by her second husband, Stephen of Cardigan (Meredith, 19).  In return, when the castle of this same William was being attacked by the Welsh, it was the family of William fitz Gerald, son of Nest by Gerald of Windsor, who came to his aid (Meredith, 23).

That this powerful network of families was principally formed and supported by the women involved is suggested by the fact that even Nest’s illegitimate children by her cousin, Owain (who, in a fit of lust, abducted her from the Pembroke home of Gerald, her husband), were also welcomed into the politically active extended family that Nest had produced (Meredith, 23).  This is best illustrated through Owain’s son by Nest, Einion, who became the steward of his half-brother, by Henry I, Robert of Gloucester.

The cord that linked these families together was strengthened by the fact that all involved were of noble birth.  This allowed for advantageous marriages that solidified and maximized the effectiveness of the network for many generations to come.

The annals of time have testified to the quality of Nest, the woman, and the offspring she produced.  Through her descendants, Princess Nest not only changed the face of the Angevin empire, but also laid the foundation for Great Britain and its future empire.  The offspring of Nest helped establish a line of English kings that would survive into the Tudor period; they helped secure Wales for England, and became the progenitors of the great houses of Ireland, forging that nation through its invasion, in 1169, to modern times.  Her descendants continue to thrive, noble and commoner alike, till the present day. 

The cause and date of death of this remarkable woman is unknown.  What is certain, however, is that she was a princess, wife, mother, and lover who, through her beauty, strength, independence, and foresight, created the foundation for many of the great nations of the modern age.

"Princess Nest will see you now...Welsh Marcher Lords to the left and all regular Anglo-Norman Barons to the right, please!"

Meredith, Gwenn. “Henry I’s Concubines.”  Essays in Medieval Studies, Vol. 19,

            (2002), pp. 14-28. West Virginia University Press. JSTOR. Web. 23 Jun. 2013.

THE ANTIQUARIAN: Love for Sale, the Beauties of Covent Garden

Published from 1757 to 1795, Harris’s List of Covent Garden Ladies is generally attributed to the pen of Jack Harris, the self-proclaimed “Pimp General of All England;” when Harris found himself in Newgate prison for debt, he arranged for publication to continue through the authorship of an Irish poet, then living in London, called Samuel Derrick.

Produced annually, as a pocketbook directory of prostitutes working in London, the 1789 edition introduces its list of available courtesans by describing the sexual impulse as an existential response of human nature.  The author says:

    In the succession of natural things, their progress, and their decay, 
    individuals seem, like atoms in the sunbeams, of little moment, in the

    great scale of Providence.  The preservation of the species in general

    appears to engross the whole scope and attention of nature; she is

    eternally busy in supplying the place of particulars that fall under the

    hand of time, and by a kind of plastic renown reviving in a blooming

    offspring the departed fire; and if you trace her through all the various 
    motions in her wide extent, she will be every where found to tend to

    one great act of love…

  

Amongst the more than one hundred listings provided, readers will find, the imperious and haughty Miss Thomas of No.28 Frith Street, whose dedication to the motto, “Days of ease and nights of pleasure,” demanded the same lewdness in all her clients that she, herself, possessed; the multilingual and musical Mrs Russel of Bolton street, who engrossed a man’s attention fully and would not offer her own attention for less than five guineas; Miss Smith of Rathbone Place, “so well proportioned, she might be styled symmetry’s truest self,” was never available when her favourite, the coach-maker’s son, was about; and Miss Maria Spencer of South Moulton Street, whose wicked black eyes spoke “the language of her mind.”

"I know, I told you to read something you're interested in---but this is unacceptable!"

THE ANTIQUARIAN: Irish Landed Gentry & "The Radleys of Knockrour"

                                                …Sing the lords and ladies gay

                                                That were beaten into the clay

                                                Through seven heroic centuries;

                                                Cast your mind on other days

                                                That we in coming days may be

                                                Still the indomitable Irishry.

                                                           

                                                                        Under Ben Bulben – W. B. Yeats

In the above lines, the seven heroic centuries that W.B. Yeats calls all Irish poets to continue to celebrate, refers to the seven centuries of British and Norman rule that, by the Elizabethan age, had been polarized through rebellion and religion.  After the Nine Years War and The Flight of the Earls, this ancien régime, which at one time included both Irish and English nobility alike, evolved into a powerful class of landed gentry that became known as the Protestant Ascendancy. 

For over two centuries, the Irish landowning class represented a link between England and Ireland that manifested itself in the Act of Union.  The Irish landed gentry, as Mark Bence-Jones states, “were, almost without exception, loyal to the Crown…”  As history, stereotypically, describes them, they were made up of ladies and gentlemen who existed in a world of wealth and manners that equaled the noblesse of Europe.

MISS MEADOWS: "Who are those men who have just come ashore in that boat, and are giving themselves such airs?  Peers?"
MR BRIMBLECORN: "Landed gentry, I think."

By the end of the First World War, however, most of the great houses of Ireland were in ruins; where manor homes and castles once stood, soon, only “a few bleached stumps” remained standing (Bowen, xvii). 

For the Radleys of Knockrour and many of the other families of the gentry, the decline had started with the agricultural disasters of the mid 19^th century; before long, the garden parties and dances ended in the Encumbered Estates Court.  By then, many of these families had put down roots that had been part of the island since the time of the Elizabethan plantation; through intermarriage with the native Irish elite and the great houses of the old Anglo-Norman families, many of these roots stretched even further back, to the Norman invasion and beyond. 

The decision to leave Ireland, for many of these families, was a difficult one.  When my great grandfather, Richard Francis Radley Kelleher, announced his plan to immigrate to Canada in 1914, my great grandmother, Mary O’Sullivan (who claimed descent from the indomitable O’Sullivan Beare), went into what members of my family have called a fine Irish rage; beginning with tossing his life’s work of transcribed music onto the fire, she staunchly declared, “If Ireland isn’t good enough for you, then neither is her music!” 

Now available through Amazon.com /Amazon.co.uk / Amazon.ca is the full history of one of these great families of Ireland.  With its discussion on the Purdons of Ballyclough, the Barrys of Rathcormak, the Halls of Ballycunningham, the Leaders of Mount Leader, the MacCarthys of Dooneen, the Twiss family of Birdhill and many others, The Radleys of Knockrour provides both a record of the Radley family itself as well as a thorough and intimate portrait of the landed gentry in Ireland.

Bence-Jones, Mark.  “The Changing Picture of the Irish Landed Gentry.”  Genealogical

            and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry of Ireland. Bernard Burke.

            London: Burke’s Peerage, 1958. 4^th ed.  xvii-xxi. Print.

Elizabeth Bowen from “The Changing Picture of the Irish Landed Gentry.”  By Mark

            Bence-Jones in Genealogical   and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry of

            Ireland. Bernard Burke. London: Burke’s Peerage, 1958. 4^th ed.  xvii-xxi. Print.

Cartoon, courtesy of http://www.pictorialgems.com/

THE ANTIQUARIAN: Edward III & the Legend of the Garter

The Order of the Garter is the most senior and the oldest British Order of Chivalry and was founded by Edward III in 1348.  The Order, consisting of the King and twenty-five knights, honours those who have held public office,  who have contributed in a particular way to national life or who have served the Sovereign personally.

                                                                                                  -The British Monarchy

As an expression of Edward III’s commitment to Arthuriana and the special significance of its legendary Round Table, the garter was “aimed very consciously to promote the martial values displayed by [Edward’s] great men on the fields of Crecy and Calais” (Ormrod, 303).

A legend surrounding the symbol chosen to represent this order relates both to speculation about the “notorious immorality of the Plantagenet court,” as well as the close relationships formed between Edward and his wife, Queen Phillipa, with William Montagu, first earl of Salisbury, and his wife, Catherine (Ormrod, 302 & 135).

After the death of his great friend William, first earl of Salisbury, in 1344, sources from the continent claimed that Edward developed an uncontrollable passion for his friend’s wife, Catherine.  A variation of the story, having also been adopted by English writers, recorded that in response to critics of this extramarital affair, Edward chose an intimate item from his lover’s underwear to represent the chivalry of England: Catherine’s garter.

The Order's enigmatic motto, it could be argued, in this way, takes on a double and rather humorous meaning: "Shame on him who thinks ill of it."

"No...Use the garter, Eddy!  I don't think The Order of Catherine's Panties will go over too well!"

Ormrod, Mark W.  Edward III.  New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2011.

“Order of the Garter.” The Official Website of the British Monarchy.  The Royal Household, n.d.  Web. 25 Oct 2013.

THE ANTIQUARIAN: The Scholar King, Alfred the Great

When Alfred, fifth son of Aethulwolf, became king, Wessex stood alone against the Vikings. In early 878, the kingdom submitted to the Danes and Alfred took refuge in the tidal marshes of Somerset, carrying on the defence of his realm with guerilla warfare and making plans to reform his army at Athelney.

In May 878, Alfred attacked and defeated the Danes at Eddington.  With this achievement, he became the first king of all the English.

At heart a scholar, Alfred dedicated his rule to the improvement of his kingdom.  He drew up a single legal code, organized the country’s finances, established protected towns and, most astonishingly, began a program aimed at providing education for all the people in his kingdom.

While continuing to defend his borders from Danish attacks, he supervised the translation, from Latin to English, of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People and Orosius’ Seven Books of Histories Against the Pagans (Cawthorne, 18).  He established art and culture in Anglo Saxon Britain by inviting scholars from all over the continent to his court and patronized such works as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.  In addition, Alfred personally translated Saint Gregory’s Pastoral Care and the Soliloquies of Saint Augustine of Hippo (Cawthorne, 18).

He is the only English king to have the honorific “the Great” and at the age of 55, near the end of his life in 899, he made the following reflection:

            What I set out to do, was to virtuously and justly administer the

            authority given to me, and to do it with wisdom.  For without wisdom,

            nothing is worthwhile…It has always been my desire to live honourably

            and to leave my descendants my memory in good works.  For each

            man, according to the measure of his intelligence, must speak what

            he can speak and do what he can do.

Alfred the Great's statue at Winchester

Cawthorne, Nigel.   Kings & Queens of England: From the Saxon Kings to the House Of Windsor.  Arcturus: London, 2010.