^{page 145 note 1} The problem was recognised already by SirSpelman, J., Life of Alfred the Great, written in 1643, ed. Hearne, T., Oxford 1709, 19 fGoogle Scholar. Stubbs, Bishop, in his edition of William of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum, Rolls Series, London 1887–9, ii. xliGoogle Scholar, classed the anointing story among ‘obscure points’ in the life of Alfred. Stevenson, W. devoted six pages of notes to the problem in his edition of Asser's Life of King Alfred, Oxford 1904, 179–85Google Scholar. See also the modern authorities cited below.

^{page 145 note 2} On the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, see Plummer, C., Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, Oxford 1892, 1899Google Scholar, especially the introduction to vol. ii; and now also ProfessorWhitelock, D.'s edition and translation, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Cambridge 1961Google Scholar, with an introduction on the various MSS. and full bibliography. I quote below from the Parker MS. (Chronicle, version A) in the facsimile edition of Flower, R. and Smith, A. H., The Parker Chronicle and Laws (Early English Text Society), London 1941Google Scholar, where the 853 entry appears on folio 13a.

^{page 145 note 3} Cap. viii: ed. cit., 7.

^{page 145 note 4} Ed. A. de Hirsch-Gereuth, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolae Karolini Aevi, iii. 602.

^{page 146 note 1} Stubbs (op. cit., xlii) gives Leo's letter in translation, adding ‘whatever that may mean’.

^{page 146 note 2} Stubbs, loc. cit. See also Schramm, P. E., A History of the English Coronation, trans. Legg, L. G. W., Oxford 1937, 16Google Scholar and n., echoing Stubb's opinion. But cf. Spelman, op. cit., 20, quoted below, 157.

^{page 146 note 3} See Plummer, G., The Life and Times of Alfred the Great, Oxford 1902, 70 ff.Google Scholar; Stevenson, op. cit., 183 f.; Hodgkin, R. H., History of the Anglo-Saxons, 3rd. ed., Oxford 1952, ii, 624 f.Google Scholar; and 746. And, opposing Alfredian authorship, SirStenton, F. M., Anglo-Saxon England, 2nd ed., Oxford 1947, 269 n.2, and 683Google Scholar; also Whitelock, D., English Historical Documents, London 1955, i. no. 219, 810Google Scholar.

^{page 146 note 4} The conflicting views will be discussed more fully below. That the recent argument of Stenton and Professor Whitelock has not entirely prevailed must be inferred from a comment of H. Löwe in Wattenbach-Levison, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, Hft. iii, Die Karolinger, Weimar 1957, 373: ‘Es wird auch zu fragen sein ob diese Umdeutung des Ehrenkonsulats wirklich … die Verfasserschaft oder Initiative Alfreds bei der sog. Chronik auszuschliessen geeignet ist’.

^{page 147 note 1} P. Ewald (‘Die Papstbriefe der Brittischen Sammlung’, in Neues Archiv, v (1879), 275–414, 505–96) could find this fragment in no other canonical collection. It is not even in the Tripartita, which contains a number of letters ascribed to Leo IV; cf. Ewald, art. cit., 595. Nor do the M.G.H. Libelli de Lite contain any references to the story of Alfred's anointing.

^{page 147 note 2} Add. MS. 8873, acquired by the BM. in 1831. The earlier history of the MS. is apparently unknown.

^{page 147 note 3} Art. cit. The letter ‘Edeluulfo regi anglorum’, which is the 31st entry ‘ex registro Leonis IIII’ in the MS., appears on fol. 168^r, not fol. 167, as stated by Ewald and in the M.G.H. edition cited above. The dating, and the ‘Italian, probably Roman’ origin of the MS. are affirmed by P. Fournier and G. le Bras, Histoire des Collections Canoniques, ii. Paris 1932, 162. The Collectio Britannica will hereafter be referred to as the CB.

^{page 147 note 4} Cf. Stubbs, op. cit., xliii; Plummer, Alfred, 70 ff.; Stevenson, op. cit., 180: and more recently, Schramm, op. cit., 16 n.1, and Whitelock, Documents, 572. The M.G.H. editor, Hirsch-Gereuth, closely followed Ewald's conclusions; see Epp. Kar. Aevi, iii. 581.

^{page 147 note 5} The basic critical study is that of Ullmann, W., ‘Nos si aliquid incompetenter …’, in Ephemerides Iuris Canonici, ix (1953), 279 ffGoogle Scholar., suggesting that one letter-fragment ascribed to Leo IV is a later forgery. Objections to other CB. fragments of Leo IV were made earlier by Parisot, R., Le Royaume de Lorraine sous les Carolingiens, Paris 1899, 739 fGoogle Scholar. Dvornik, F. (The Photian Schism, Cambridge 1948, 324–6Google Scholar) criticised other parts of the CB. Ullmann rightly called attention to the ‘intricate problems presented by the CB.’: see art. cit., 281.

^{page 147 note 6} Fournier's letter is quoted by Parisot, op. cit., 741 n.8. But cf. his later stance in Histoire des Collections, ii. 157: ‘Nous adhérons aux conclusions d'Ewald …’.

^{page 147 note 7} Art. cit., 286–7.

^{page 148 note 1} Schramm, , Kaiser, Rom, und Renovatio, Leipzig 1929, i. 26 f.Google Scholar; and History of English Coronation, 16.

^{page 148 note 2} Cf. the suggestion of Ganshof, F. L., ‘Note sur les origines byzantines du titre “Patricius Romanorum”’, in Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales, x (1950), esp. 282Google Scholar, relating the patriciate conferred on Pippin to cap. 15 of the Donation.

^{page 148 note 3} On all this see Schramm, Kaiser, i. 57.

^{page 148 note 4} Laehr, G., Die konstantinische Schenkung, Berlin 1926, 15–18Google Scholar, 181–3.

^{page 148 note 5} This was admitted by Schramm, History of English Coronation, 16: ‘There is on record no parallel for such an act’. Stevenson (op. cit., 184) suggested as a parallel the ‘consulship’ offered by Gregory III to Charles Martel, but this story is now rejected as resting on a wrong emendation of the text of Pseudo-Fredegar: see Heldmann, K., Das Kaisertum Karls der Grosse, Weimar 1928, 152 n.5Google Scholar, and Ganshof, art. cit., 271 f., with full references.

^{page 148 note 6} Gregorovius, F., Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter, 5th ed., Stuttgart 1903, ii. 420Google Scholar.

^{page 148 note 7} Ibid., accepted by Stevenson solely on the evidence of the CB. fragment. Cf. also, Lees, B. A., Alfred the Great, the Truth-teller, London 1915, 85Google Scholar.

^{page 148 note 8} History of English Coronation, 16. But Æthelwulf would find out when he visited Rome how little the consulate was now worth, and his intended pilgrimage had evidently been known about at Rome for some time: cf. Annales Bertiniani, sub anno 839.

^{page 148 note 9} On the Frankish patriciate, see Ganshof, art. cit., passim; also Ullmann, W., The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed., London 1962, 66 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 149 note 1} See Kantorowicz, E. H., Laudes Regiae, Berkeley 1946, 136 ff.Google Scholar; also Schramm, , ‘Sacerdotium und Regnum im Austausch ihrer Vorrechte’, in Studi Gregoriani, ii (1947), esp. 436 ff., and 446Google Scholar, where he comments about the period after 1046: ‘Gewarhen wir nun eine konsequent durchgeführte Gegenoffensive auf einen Papst-Kaiser zu, die einsetzt, sowie das Reformpapsttum die Lenkung der Kirche übernommen hat’; and Ullmann, op. cit., 310 ff.

^{page 149 note 2} Laehr, op. cit., 34 f.

^{page 149 note 3} For all this see Schramm, Kaiser, i. 196 f., and his edition of the Libellus de caeremoniis aulae imperatoris, in op. cit., ii. 90–104. The passage about consuls is at p. 91. Schramm shows clearly the extent to which the Libellus is dependent on its sources, especially Isidore; cf. i. 197. In the passage quoted here, only the words ‘consilio regant’ are taken from an earlier source—Isidore's Etymologies, ix. 3, 6.

^{page 149 note 4} Cf. Stevenson, op. cit., 183 n.5. A good instance of ‘cingulum’ used synonymously with ‘gladius’ may be found in the parallel accounts of Louis II's investiture in 844 given by Ann. Bertin., sub anno, and the Vita of Sergius II, cap. 13 in the Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, Paris 1886–, ii. 89. See also Ducange, Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis, s.v. ‘cingulum’, for evidence of the word's military connotation.

^{page 149 note 5} Op. cit., 183, n.3; see also the previous note.

^{page 149 note 6} This appears most clearly in the royal coronation ordines of the tenth and eleventh centuries: cf. the rubric of the ‘Frühdeutsche Ordo’ edited by Erdmann, C., Forschungen zur politischen Ideenwelt des Frühmittelalters, Berlin 1951, 86, section 12Google Scholar; and also the sword-prayer of the ‘Ordo der Sieben Formeln’, ibid., 89. On this, see the comments of Ullmann, , ‘Der Souveränitätsgedanke in den Krönungsordines’, in Festschrift P. E. Schramm, i., Wiesbaden 1964, 72–89Google Scholar, esp. 82.

^{page 150 note 1} Stickler, A. M. (‘Il gladius nel Registro di Gregorio VII’, in Studi Gregoriani, iii (1948), 89–103Google Scholar) gives some evidence for this conclusion. See also Ullmann, Growth of Papal Government, 304 ff.

^{page 150 note 2} The liturgical evidence offers no parallel for such an expression; it is rather the idea of transmission and reception by the officiant, or by the godparents, which predominates in confirmation. The active role is that of the bishop, while the person received, at this period normally an infant, naturally remains passive during this rite of incorporation. See P. de Puniet, art. ‘Confirmation’, in Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie, iii. pt. 2. cols. 2575 ff., esp. the passages there cited from Western liturgies. Cf. also the Roman rite of Ordo Romanus XI, cap. 100, ed. Andrieu, M. in Les Ordines Romani du haut Moyen Age, Louvain 1949, ii. 446Google Scholar.

^{page 150 note 3} Ganshof, F. L., Feudalism, trans. Grierson, P., London 1952, 67, cf. 27, 74Google Scholar. See also Mitteis, H., Lehnrecht und Staatsgewalt, Weimar 1933, 70 f., 479 fGoogle Scholar. For further examples of terminology see Ducange, Glossarium, s.v. ‘Manus’, ‘Hominium’, ‘Investitura’.

^{page 150 note 4} H. Brunner, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, 2nd ed. revised by C. F. von Schwerin, Munich 1928, ii. 364 and nn. cf. 66 nn.

^{page 150 note 5} Jordan, K., ‘Das Eindringen des Lehnwesens in das Rechtsleben der römischen Kurie’, in Archiv für Urkundenforschung, xii (1932), 64–5Google Scholar; and, for the feudal activities of the Reform papacy in general, ibid., 71–83.

^{page 150 note 6} See Brooke, Z. N., ‘Pope Gregory VII's Demand for Fealty from William the Conqueror’, in English Historical Review, xxvi (1911), 225–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and also, partially revising the views there put forward, The English Church and the Papacy, Cambridge 1931, 140 ffGoogle Scholar. Also Weckmann, L., Las Bulas Alejandrinas, Mexico 1949, 80–90Google Scholar.

^{page 150 note 7} The evidence of papal claims is to be found in (1) the letter of Alexander II to William, preserved in the Collectio Canonum of Deusdedit, iii. cap. 269, ed. Wolf von Glanvell, Paderborn 1905, 378; and (2) William's reply to Gregory VII's revival of his predecessor's claims, printed in Lanfranci Opera, (Ep. x.), ed. J. A. Giles, Oxford 1844, 32. I quote this passage below, 151, n.4.

^{page 151 note 1} See Weckmann, op. cit., 74 ff.; also Stenton, op. cit., 215–16 n.1, and 460–1. Payments by Alfred are recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, sub anno 883, 887, 888 and 890. A propos papal claims in general, note the observation of du Haut-Jussé, B. A. Pocquet, ‘La Bretagne a-t-elle été vassalle du Saint-Siège?’, in Studi Gregoriani, i (1947) 189Google Scholar: ‘Il est exceptionnel que le Saint-Siège ait fait les premières démarches en vue d'obtenir la soumission d'un état. Nous ne pensons pas quʼil se soit jamais risqué à en lancer l'idée sans s'appuyer sur un titre sérieux ou supposé tel’.

^{page 151 note 2} Cf. the relations of the Reform papacy with Denmark, as revealed in Alexander II's letter quoted by Deusdedit, Collectio, iii. cap. 268, and Gregory VII's Register, ii. 51 and 75 (ed. E. Caspar). On papal claims to Brittany, see B. A. Pocquet du Haut-Jussé, art. cit. Cf. also Gregory's claims to Spain, Reg., iv. 28; Hungary, Reg., ii. 13; and even France, Reg., viii. 23.

^{page 151 note 3} See Weckmann, op. cit., 90, also referring to the ‘omni-insular theory’ of the papacy. The suggestion (ibid.) that this was perhaps relevant in the English case finds no support in the sources.

^{page 151 note 4} Note the tone of indignant refutation in William's reply; Giles ed. cit., 32: ‘Fidelitatem facere nolui nec volo, quia nec ego promisi, nec antecessores meos antecessoribus tuis id fecisse comperio’. Stenton (op. cit., 667) comments: ‘No statesman has ever settled a major issue in fewer words, or more conclusively’.

^{page 152 note 1} Jordan, art. cit., 71–83; and Erdmann, C., Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens, Stuttgart 1953, 202 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 152 note 2} On this suggestion, see Brooke, op. cit., 140–5, and Stenton, op cit., 667; also, cautiously inclined to accept this view, Weckmann, op. cit., 81 ff., and Erdmann, Entstehung, 172 f.

^{page 152 note 3} Cf. Ducange, Glossarium, s.v. ‘Cingulum’, and the evidence of the dubbing liturgies cited by Bloch, M., Feudal Society, trans. Manyon, L. A., London 1961, 315Google Scholar, noting, à propos the permeation of the dubbing ceremony by the liturgy: ‘This process was completed by the eleventh century’. See also following note.

^{page 152 note 4} For the more usual view of the rapid feudalisation of England under William, see Douglas, D. C. and Greenaway, G. W., English Historical Documents, London 1953, ii. 24–8Google Scholar, and 894 ff. But see also on William's feudal methods even critics of this view: Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., The Governance of Medieval England, Edinburgh 1963, 77Google Scholar. It is interesting to note the account by Ordericus Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica, viii. 1 (P.L., lxxxviii. 560) of the knighting of William's son Henry: ‘Hunc Lanfrancus Dorobernensis episcopus … ad arma pro defensione regni sustulit … eique … militiae cingulum in nomine Domini cinxit’. For a brief but very favourable judgement on the value of this early twelfth-century source, see Douglas and Greenaway, op. cit., 98.

^{page 152 note 5} Reg., ii. 74: ‘Filius vester limina apostolorum visitans ad nos venit, et quod regnum illud dono sancti Petri per manus nostras vellet obtinere …’. Cf. Leo IV to Æthelwulf: ‘Filium vestrum Erfred quem hoc in tempore ad sanctorum apostolorum limina destinare curastis benigne suscepimus …’ (etc. as cited above, 145).

^{page 152 note 6} The letter of Sancho Ramirez is on fol. 146 of the CB., and is cited by Kehr, P., ‘Wie und wann wurde das Reich Aragon ein Lehen der römischen Kirche?’ in Sitzungs-berichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, (1928) at 218Google Scholar: ‘Beati Petri limina adii, meque regnumque meum Deo et eius potestati tradidi…’.

^{page 153 note 1} Collectio, iii. cap. 278; ed. cit., 383–5: King Zvonimir of Dalmatia and Croatia after his investiture ‘per vexillum, ensem, sceptrum et coronam’ becomes a papal vassal: ‘Me tuis manibus committo …’.

^{page 153 note 2} Fournier-Le Bras, op. cit., ii. 155 ff.

^{page 153 note 3} Growth of Papal Government, 363.

^{page 153 note 4} Cf. Fournier, , ‘Un tournant de l'histoire du droit’, in Revue historique du Droit français et étranger, xli (1917), 141 f.Google Scholar; and Histoire des Collections Canoniques, ii. 7–14. Fournier mentions ‘Italian libraries’, but there seems no reason to limit the researchers’ field of operations too narrowly: if the arguments of Parisot (op. cit., 739 ff.) are accepted, as I believe they should be, then at least one forged CB. fragment may well have depended on a northern French source.

^{page 153 note 5} See references above, 151 n. 1.

^{page 153 note 6} Stenton, op. cit., 461–2, and 651.

^{page 154 note 1} The bilingual (Latin and Anglo-Saxon) version F cannot be dated earlier than the first half of the twelfth century; cf. Magoun, F. P. in Modern Language Review, vi (1945), 371 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 154 note 2} Stevenson, op. cit., xi, lv ff.

^{page 154 note 3} Æthelweard's Chronicon, a late tenth-century work, has recently been re-edited by A. Campbell, London 1962. See his Introduction, xii. The original MS., now lost, was sent to Essen, where the author's relative was abbess; see Whitbread, L. in Eng. Hist. Rev, lxxiv (1959), 581CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the Vita Grimbaldi, see Grierson, P., ‘Grimbald of St. Bertin's’, in Eng. Hist. Rev, lv (1940), 541 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. Grimbald's English Vita, whose information on Alfred's visit to Rome was very probably derived from Asser, was certainly known at St. Omer by the early twelfth century.

^{page 154 note 4} This is evident from the deliberate and imposing phrase: ‘Ut mos est Romanis consulibus’.

^{page 154 note 5} Ed. cit., ii. 106–34: and an unusually long Vita. The significance of this omission should not be overstressed, however, for there are one or two other surprising omissions from this Vita. Cf. Duchesne, ibid., v.

^{page 154 note 6} Ibid., 148.

^{page 154 note 7} Collectio, iii. esp. caps. 185–289; ed. cit., 350–96. Alexander II's letter to William the Conqueror is naturally included in this section. Brooke (op. cit., 141) described this part of the Collectio as a ‘a sort of early Liber Censuum’.

^{page 155 note 1} The Chronicle version of the story, of course, maintained its popularity with English writers throughout the Middle Ages: cf. the sources named by Plummer, Alfred, 73, n.

^{page 155 note 2} On Asser's ‘remarkable’ form of composition, see Stevenson, op. cit., lxxix ff.

^{page 155 note 3} On the Anglo-Saxon ‘gehalgian’, see P. Hunter Blair, An Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England, Cambridge 1959, 205. The word was certainly ‘normally used of the consecration of bishops’ in Anglo-Saxon texts, but this was the case long before anointing formed part of episcopal consecration. Cf. Ellard, G.. Ordination Anointings in the Western Church, Cambridge, Mass. 1933, chs. 1 and 2Google Scholar; and Andrieu, , ‘Le sacre épiscopal d'après Hincmar’, in Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique, xlvii (1953), 22 ffGoogle Scholar. It is, therefore, hazardous to assume, without further evidence, that terms like ‘gehalgod’ or ‘gebletsod’ used of eighth or ninth century royal consecrations imply that unction was performed.

^{page 155 note 4} See Treitinger, O., Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee, Jena 1938, 29, 194 f.Google Scholar; and Dölger, F., Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt, Ettal 1953, 296Google Scholar, both decisively against the view that imperial anointing was practised in the East at this period. In general, however, Byzantine influence pervaded the ceremonial of Western Europe and, perhaps, lay behind the adoption of the practice of co-rulership by Offa of Mercia (787) and later by the Capetians; it might also have lead Æthelweard to stress the ‘stemma’ or ‘stefos’ in describing early tenth-century royal inaugurations. Cf. Chronicon, ed. cit., 51, 54, though note Campbell ibid., xlv, on the ‘hermeneutic tradition’. On the possibility of more general Anglo-Byzantine contacts in the pre-Conquest period see Lopez, R. S., ‘Le Problème des Relations Anglo-Byzantines …’, in Byzantion, xviii (1948), 139–62Google Scholar.

^{page 155 note 5} Schramm, , ‘Die Krönung bei den Westfranken und Angelsachsen’, in Zeitschrift für Rechtsgeschichte, liv, Kan. Abt. 23 (1934), 117–242Google Scholar; and Bouman, C. A., Sacring and Crowning, Gröningen 1957, 9–27, 107–26Google Scholar.

^{page 156 note 1} There was, further, no West Saxon precedent for a co-rulership, although the Chronicle, sub anno 836, relates the establishment of a sub-kingship for Alfred's elder brother; but there is no evidence of any such arrangement in the case of Alfred himself. See below for a discussion of Plummer's hypothesis.

^{page 156 note 2} Ailred of Rievaulx, in his Genealogy of English Kings; P.L., cxcv. 718.

^{page 156 note 3} For D and E, see the edition of D. Whitelock cited above. F must be compared from the edition of Thorpe, B., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (Rolls Series), London 1861Google Scholar, i., Texts.

^{page 156 note 4} Alfred, 74.

^{page 156 note 5} de Pange, J., Le Roi très chrétien, Paris 1949Google Scholar. The Alfred story was, on his own admission, one of his strongest arguments. Cf. 218: ‘La confirmation reçue a cinq ans aurait done rétrospectivement été regardée comme une consécration à la royauté; and n. 83, where Stubbs's agreement is adduced. For a short but cogent refutation of de Pange's theory, see now Bouman, op. cit., x n.3. This provides a basis for the reappraisal of the Alfred story itself.

^{page 156 note 6} This relationship is too complex to be discussed here; but cf. the perceptive, though not always reliable analysis of de Pange, op. cit., 98–128. The crucial New Testament text is I Peter, ii. 9: ‘Vos autem genus electum, regale sacerdotium …’. See also the important article of Michels, T., ‘Die Akklamation in der Taufliturgie’, in Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft, viii (1928), 79 f., and 85 n.1Google Scholar.

^{page 157 note 1} Life of Alfred, 22.

^{page 157 note 2} Cf. the works cited above, esp. Stevenson, ed. cit, 181: ‘It is difficult to reject the theory that we can detect his [Alfred's] influence in this strange entry’.

^{page 157 note 3} Op. cit., 683.

^{page 157 note 4} Op. cit., 624.

^{page 157 note 5} Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, xxii-iii; cf. her statement in ‘Recent work on Asser's Life’, a survey added to the reprint of the 1904 ed., Oxford 1959, cxxxvii: ‘Stevenson's opinion … has not won general acceptance’. Note, however, the comment of H. Löwe quoted above, 146 n.4.

^{page 157 note 6} Thus Stevenson, ed. cit., 181; cf. Plummer, Alfred, 71.

^{page 158 note 1} Op. cit., 269 n.2; it was the ‘consular investiture’ which the compiler ‘afterwards confused (!) with ordination to kingship’. Stenton's view on the authorship question is fully set out in his study, ‘The South-western Element in the Old English Chronicle’, in Essays … presented to T. F. Tout, Manchester 1925, 15–24Google Scholar.

^{page 158 note 2} See de Pange, op. cit., 206 ff.; and Oppenheimer, F., The Legend of the Ste. Ampoule, London 1953, 173 fGoogle Scholar. The crucial text is Hincmar's Adnuntiatio preceding the consecration of Charles the Bald as king of Lorraine in 869, printed in M.G.H. Capit, ii. 340.

^{page 158 note 3} I am aware of the attempts that have been made to prove that Alfred himself confused the terms ‘consul’ and ‘king’. The evidence from his works has been discussed by B. A. Lees, op. cit., 85 n.; and by Loyn, H. R. in Eng. Hist. Rev, lxviii (1953), 519CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Alfred's usage is far from consistent; but there is only one case where his translation of Bede's consul by consul 7 cyning could be read as evidence of confusion. In fact, this reveals his awareness of the problem of translating this alien constitutional term, and his grasp of the distinctive element of the consulship—its kingly quality. Another perceptive foreign observer, Polybius, had found a problem of definition here, and had come to a similar conclusion; cf. Hist., vi. 11.

^{page 159 note 1} ‘Veredicus’; Vita, cap. 13: ed. cit., 12. It should, perhaps, be noted that Asser seems to use the term here in the rather narrow sense of ‘accurate informant’, for he goes on to mention the ‘multi veredici’ from whom Alfred got his information.

^{page 159 note 2} Archiv für das Studium der Neueren Sprachen, civ (1900), 193. (A review of Plummer, Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, cited above.)

^{page 159 note 3} Op. cit., 92. The ‘psychological implications’ of this fact are, as Bloch insists, ‘well worth pondering’.

^{page 159 note 4} Stenton himself (op. cit., 682–3) refers to the ‘Alfredian section’ of the MS., for the revision of the annals in the 890s certainly reflected the revival of learning which Alfred inspired.

^{page 160 note 1} This view would be supported if the two big marginal crosses which flank the 853 entry in the Parker MS. (A) are contemporary with the section down to 891. See fol. 13^a in the facsimile edition cited above. But the crosses are more probably an addition of the second half of the tenth century. I am indebted to Professor F. Wormald and Mr. N. Ker for their help on this point.

^{page 160 note 2} Ed. cit., 182.

^{page 160 note 3} ‘The Coronation Order in the Tenth Century’, in J.T.S, xix (1917), 56 f., esp. 66Google Scholar.

^{page 160 note 4} See above, 155 n.3. The theory that the Anglo-Saxons practised royal anointing before its introduction among the Franks has recently been revived by several scholars of distinction: cf. Klauser, T., in Jahrbuch fur Liturgiewissenschaft, xiii (1933), 350Google Scholar; and now Bouman, op. cit., xi; also Richardson and Sayles, op. cit., 397 f. But cf., too, the arguments of Ellard, op. cit., ch. i, which seem to me convincing. The verdict on Anglo-Saxon priority must remain ‘unproven’.

^{page 160 note 5} See above, 155 n.4.

^{page 160 note 6} Richardson and Sayles argue (loc. cit.) that royal anointings were too familiar to attract contemporary comment. A comparison with the copious references to anointing in Frankish sources might suggest otherwise.

^{page 160 note 7} Until 848, Frankish anointings had, of course, been performed by the pope. The ‘take-over’ of royal consecrations by the Frankish hierarchy might be seen from one angle as part of their general opposition to Roman centralisation; in this Hincmar was a leading figure. Cf. Ullmann, Growth of Papal Government, 119 ff., 153. No comparable movement existed in England, for fairly obvious reasons. On the maintainance of links with Rome and on the ever-growing problems of the English Church in the ninth century, see Stenton, op. cit., 427 f.

^{page 161 note 1} As Schramm rightly points out: History of English Coronation, 16.

^{page 161 note 2} Cf. Vita, cap. 42; ed. cit., 32.

^{page 161 note 3} Stenton, op. cit., 256 ff.

^{page 161 note 4} Hodgkin, op. cit., 647 ff.

^{page 161 note 5} On the implications of becoming a ‘christus’, see Kern, F., Gottesgnadentum und Widerstandrecht, 2nd ed., R. Buchner, Munster 1954, 46 ff.Google Scholar; also Schramm, , Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik, Stuttgart 1954, i. 127Google Scholar.

^{page 161 note 6} Cf. Vita of Benedict III cited above, 154 n.6, and Annales Bertiniani, sub anno 855. The silence of these sources bears out the view that the English princeling, seemingly without hope of the crown, was not unnaturally regarded at this time as of little account. Benedict III, it may be noted, became pope only in 855.

^{page 161 note 7} Vita, cap 11; ed. cit., 9: ‘Roman perrexit, praefatumque filium suum Alfredum iterum in eandem viam secum ducens, eo quod illum plus ceteris filiis diligebat….’

^{page 161 note 8} On the dangers of pilgrimage to Rome at this time and for long after, see Plummer, Alfred, 76 ff., and Bloch, op. cit., 6.

^{page 162 note 1} Vita, cap. 74; ed. cit., 55.

^{page 162 note 2} See Stevenson, ed. cit., lxxix ff.; also the criticisms of Galbraith, V. H., Historical Research …, London 1951, 13 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 162 note 3} For Stubbs's observation, see his ed. of William of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum cited above, 145 n. 1; also Stevenson, ed. cit., 180. It should be noted, however, that the Annales Regni Francorum, sub anno 781 distinguish very carefully between baptism/confirmation and royal anointing.

^{page 162 note 4} Op. cit., 624.

^{page 162 note 5} Cf. Galbraith, loc. cit., and Stevenson, ed. cit., lxxxi f.

^{page 162 note 6} Ullmann, , Ephem. Iuris Canon, ix (1953), 287 n.3Google Scholar: ‘The papal name of Leo seems to play a crucial role in forgeries and falsifications of the tenth and eleventh centuries’.

^{page 163 note 1} Chronicon, sub anno 900; ed. cit., 51, xxx f.

^{page 163 note 2} Cf. Schramm, ‘Die Krönung bei den Westfranken’, 194, 198; also Bouman, op. cit., 125 n.3. It may not be without significance that Pentecost was traditionally the day of confirmation. Byzantine emperors were also often crowned on this day; cf. Treitinger, op. cit., 37. King Edgar, too, was crowned at Pentecost; see Chronicle, sub anno 973.

^{page 163 note 3} The Mercian Register was incorporated in versions B and C of the Chronicle. See ed. cit., sub anno 924 for Athelstan's consecration. The true date was 925: see Beaven, M. L. R. in Eng. Hist. Rev, xxxii (1917), 521 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Robinson, J. A., The Times of St. Dunstan, Oxford 1923, 27–36Google Scholar.

^{page 163 note 4} See Stubbs's edition, i. 145. For an excellent discussion of the Latin poem used by William, see now Loomis, L. K., ‘The Holy Relics of Charlemagne and King Athelstan’, in Speculum, xxv (1950), 437–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, stressing the value of this source. The fact that Athelstan was in his thirtieth year affords a remarkable parallel, hitherto unnoticed, with the case of Edgar. On the significance of this age à propos Edgar's deferred coronation, see the illuminating suggestion of Stenton, op. cit., 363.